Supreme Court Rules with Hobby Lobby on Contraception

martian · Jul 1, 2014

cynthetiq said: ↑

ZocDoc
Crain’s Best Places to Work in NYC 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
Modern Healthcare Best Places to Work 2011, 2012, 2013

Both Zocdoc and Google aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing it out of the competitiveness for the pool of employees. Again, capitalism.
Click to expand...

Right. So that's pretty much what I said. Google isn't Hobby Lobby. Google needs talented and experienced engineers. Hobby Lobby needs people who are able to walk and put things on shelves. Google (or ZocDoc, or Netflix, or Tesla, or whatever other example involving highly skilled workers) has absolutely no relevance to this discussion.

cynthetiq · Jul 1, 2014

Martian said: ↑

Right. So that's pretty much what I said. Google isn't Hobby Lobby. Google needs talented and experienced engineers. Hobby Lobby needs people who are able to walk and put things on shelves. Google (or ZocDoc, or Netflix, or Tesla, or whatever other example involving highly skilled workers) has absolutely no relevance to this discussion.
Click to expand...

But they do the worker pool of those people who put things on shelves aren't all just unskilled workers, far from it.

Costco has people who are able to walk and put things on shelves. They have happy employees. They have high salaries, and their stock is a continual growth.
Walmart has people that are able to walk and put things on shelves. They have happy employees. They have minimum salaries, and their stock is a continual growth.

same labor pool. so what's your point?

martian · Jul 1, 2014

I don't know how happy Walmart employees are. I haven't looked into it much. Gut instinct says not very but I'm honestly not inclined to argue the point.

The point (which still stands) is that some corporations deciding that it's a competitive advantage for them to go over the mandated minimums doesn't void the necessity of those minimums. And I don't know how many more new ways I can come up with to say that.

Diabetics need insulin. People with bad kidneys need dialysis. People having surgery need blood transfusions. And women need birth control. All of these therapies are medically necessary for some people, and all of them contravene someone's religious precepts. If we're going to decide that the law will say (and it does say) that employers, by way of mandatory insurance plans, must provide insulin and and dialysis and blood, it makes no sense to then say that they don't have to also provide birth control because religion. Note that for coporations that do not qualify for the religious exemption, they must cover birth control. The law is not consistent on this point, and I personally believe that it's a huge mistake to give corporate entities the right to deny employees therapies or ignore aspects of the law based on some sort of religious argument. That opens up the potential for so many abuses I can't even fathom how anyone could ever think it was a good idea.

cynthetiq · Jul 1, 2014

Martian said: ↑

I don't know how happy Walmart employees are. I haven't looked into it much. Gut instinct says not very but I'm honestly not inclined to argue the point.

The point (which still stands) is that some corporations deciding that it's a competitive advantage for them to go over the mandated minimums doesn't void the necessity of those minimums. And I don't know how many more new ways I can come up with to say that.

Diabetics need insulin. People with bad kidneys need dialysis. People having surgery need blood transfusions. And women need birth control. All of these therapies are medically necessary for some people, and all of them contravene someone's religious precepts. If we're going to decide that the law will say (and it does say) that employers, by way of mandatory insurance plans, must provide insulin and and dialysis and blood, it makes no sense to then say that they don't have to also provide birth control because religion. Note that for coporations that do not qualify for the religious exemption, they must cover birth control. The law is not consistent on this point, and I personally believe that it's a huge mistake to give corporate entities the right to deny employees therapies or ignore aspects of the law based on some sort of religious argument. That opens up the potential for so many abuses I can't even fathom how anyone could ever think it was a good idea.
Click to expand...

You are sweeping a broad brush there.

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
Click to expand...

The object to 4 items in the list of 20.

They aren't saying they aren't denying birth control. 16 out of 20 is allowed and they do not morally object to.

Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?

The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case doesn't currently affect the birth control methods that are most commonly used. But Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokeswoman Justine Sessions says the decision "opens the door for other corporations to be able to opt out of providing any form of birth control."
It doesn't affect:
• Most birth control pills
• Condoms
• Sponges
• Sterilization
It does affect:
• Plan B "morning-after pill"
• Ella "morning-after pill"
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)
The companies in the case and their supporters object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Groups that lobby for reproductive rights contend the drugs and devices prevent fertilization from occurring, which can lead to unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.
Click to expand...

So what slippery slope are we saying we are on here that this can become rife with abuses? Where are we saying that Hobby Lobby is denying birth control? Because that's not the information and facts that I'm reading.

you want to talk fear, go right ahead, but the facts are that they aren't denying any of their employees access to birth control.

cynthetiq said: ↑

In other words, nobody gets to be "right" in this case. No one's religious beliefs can trample someone else's health needs, and even if the government can't force closely held private companies to pay for contraceptives, these companies can't stop their employees from being on birth control. Hobby Lobby is a balancing act, not a bludgeon—and certainly not an attack on women's rights.
Click to expand...

My religious beliefs shouldn't trump your health needs and your health needs shouldn't trump my religious beliefs.

My rights shouldn't trample over yours no more than yours trample over mine.

It's pretty simple.

martian · Jul 8, 2014

cynthetiq said: ↑

The object to 4 items in the list of 20.

They aren't saying they aren't denying birth control. 16 out of 20 is allowed and they do not morally object to.

you want to talk fear, go right ahead, but the facts are that they aren't denying any of their employees access to birth control.
Click to expand...

This goes back to my discussion with Herculite. Hobby Lobby may or may not be covering hormonal birth control, but the decision says they don't have to. There's nothing in the text of the decision that limits it's scope to those four therapies, and even if there were it would be pretty hard to enforce that when the next institution came along and objected to a different form of birth control. You can't make special rules just for Hobby Lobby. The scope of this decision goes far beyond Hobby Lobby, or even just birth control. Justice Ginsberg's dissent covered a lot of this ground. The New Yorker also has some interesting analysis if you're interested.

A Very Bad Ruling on Hobby Lobby : The New Yorker

If you think that SCOTUS can create a loophole like this and as many corporations as possible aren't going to rush to abuse it, you've got more faith in corporate responsibility than I do. @snowy's list of corporations in line to drop coverage is illuminating as to just how many people this decision affects.
--- merged: Jul 1, 2014 at 5:51 PM ---
The question isn't whether your religious beliefs take precedence over my healthcare. The question is whether it's valid to extend those religious beliefs to a corporate entity that you own. I don't think it is, and I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set if you start deciding otherwise.

cynthetiq · Jul 8, 2014

Martian said: ↑

This goes back to my discussion with Herculite. Hobby Lobby may or may not be covering hormonal birth control, but the decision says they don't have to. There's nothing in the text of the decision that limits it's scope to those four therapies, and even if there were it would be pretty hard to enforce that when the next institution came along and objected to a different form of birth control. You can't make special rules just for Hobby Lobby. The scope of this decision goes far beyond Hobby Lobby, or even just birth control. Justice Ginsberg's dissent covered a lot of this ground. The New Yorker also has some interesting analysis if you're interested.

A Very Bad Ruling on Hobby Lobby : The New Yorker

If you think that SCOTUS can create a loophole like this and as many corporations as possible aren't going to rush to abuse it, you've got more faith in corporate responsibility than I do. @snowy's list of corporations in line to drop coverage is illuminating as to just how many people this decision affects.
--- merged: Jul 1, 2014 at 5:51 PM ---
The question isn't whether your religious beliefs take precedence over my healthcare. The question is whether it's valid to extend those religious beliefs to a corporate entity that you own. I don't think it is, and I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set if you start deciding otherwise.
Click to expand...

Actually in the world you want to live in which is ruled by laws, the RFRA law is how this was decided.

The Hobby Lobby majority, summarized in (relatively) plain English - The Washington Post

Here’s my shot at trying to summarize what the majority was saying in the Hobby Lobby decision. Note that I’m saying this in the voice of a hypothetical Supreme Court justice trying to quickly explain his decision; I’m not necessarily endorsing the statements made below but just trying to accurately capture the majority’s reasoning.
1. Congress has decided that religious objectors may go to court to demand religious exemptions from federal laws, when the law makes them do things that they view as religiously forbidden. That’s not required as a constitutional matter under the Free Exercise Clause; the Court decided that in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). But in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Congress chose to give religious objectors a statutory right to such exemptions, at least in many cases:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, …
[unless the Government] demonstrates that application of the burden to the person …
is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.

2. RFRA doesn’t exclude laws which impose a burden on closely held religious corporations. To be sure, a corporation is a legal fiction; it cannot itself practice religion, or for that matter do anything else. It acts only through people.

But — precisely because a corporation is just a legal fiction — when a law requires such a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners, and not just of the fictional corporation itself. “[P]rotecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby … protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.”
3. The owners of Hobby Lobby sincerely believe that it’s wrong for them to buy their employees insurance plans that they see as supporting abortion. They have no objection to contraception as such, but they view contraceptives that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg as tantamount to abortion drugs.
The government acknowledges that its regulations require businesses to pay for such contraceptives (on pain of substantial monetary penalties). Therefore the law substantially burdens the owners’ religious practices, by requiring them to do something they think religiously forbidden.
To be sure, the law doesn’t require the employers to personally get abortions or perform abortions. But the employers sincerely believe that even buying insurance policies that pay for such abortions is religiously forbidden complicity in abortion.
It’s not for courts to second-guess the reasonableness of such judgments about how to define religiously forbidden complicity. “[T]he Hahns and Greens and their companies sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”
4. Of course, the legal system has many rules that require people to do what they think religiously wrong (or, the legal equivalent, to not do what they think religiously required). Not all religious exemptions can be granted. RFRA provides that, if denying the exemption is really the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest, a court should indeed deny the exemption.
But “[t]he least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding.” Under RFRA, if the government can — even by changing the way its programs operate, and at some cost to taxpayers — bothadequately serve its compelling interests and provide an exemption to religious objectors, then it must do so.
And here, the government can indeed both provide free contraceptives (as the regulations under the Congressionally enacted Affordable Care Act provide) and exempt religious objectors (as the Congressionally enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides).
First, the government could pay for the contraceptives directly. Though that would cost taxpayer money, religious exemptions sometimes do cost money, and the extra cost would be a tiny fraction of the ACA’s $130 billion expense per year. Indeed, RFRA’s sister statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, provides that it “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.”
Second, the government has already exempted some religious nonprofits from the law. Under this exemption, insurers would (1) exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer-paid health plan, and (2) separately pay for contraceptive coverage that the insurer would provide directly to the employees. (The government has concluded this is fair to insurers because the cost to them of contraceptives would be balanced by the savings from lower pregnancy costs and other health costs.) A similar plan is available for self-insured religious nonprofits.
These exemptions could easily be extended to for-profit religious objectors such as Hobby Lobby. Such an extension would mean the government can still ensure that contraceptives are provided at no cost to patients, but Hobby Lobby and similar objectors wouldn’t be required to do what they think their religions forbid.
5. This sort of accommodation is what Congress has mandated.When both the government’s compelling interests and religious objectors’ religious beliefs can be adequately accommodated, Congress said (in enacting RFRA) that they should be accommodated.
But Congress also said that these decisions must turn on the facts of each exemption request, and the options available for accommodating such accommodation requests. In future cases — for instance, ones involving race discrimination in employment, or insurance coverage for vaccination or blood transfusions — the result might be different.
It might not be possible in those cases (as it is in this case) to adequately accommodate both the government interests and the religious objections. If that’s so, then those religious exemptions would not have to be granted. Wisely or not, Congress has required courts to sort through religious exemption requests, granting some and denying others. This is what the Supreme Court has done here.
Click to expand...

Cayvmann · Jul 1, 2014

cynthetiq said: ↑

ask any athiest how much freedom from religion they experience on a daily basis.

further, freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom from speech from other people. See how that works there? It's not useless. It's working as intended.
Click to expand...

Wow, you have jumped far for that one. Nobody even implied that freedom from religion would mean you didn't hear about it. But having others force upon you the rules of their religion is a different thing altogether. And no shit on the freedom of speech, also.

I am an atheist, btw. I don't expect people not to discuss religion, or even to preach ( except at work, as I am a government employee ). Freedom of religion must mean that a person can choose their own path, without having outside actors pushing theirs on them. I am free to practice mine, only because I am free from yours.

Like I said it's meaningless to have freedom 'of', without freedom 'from'. (religion)

Freedom 'from' speech would work just the opposite way. If you can't speak about something I disagree with, then you don't have freedom 'of'. Speech and religious practice are two completely different beasts in that respect...

martian · Jul 2, 2014

cynthetiq said: ↑

Actually in the world you want to live in which is ruled by laws, the RFRA law is how this was decided
Click to expand...

Doesn't everyone want to live in a world ruled by laws? I thought that was basically the point of this whole society thing.

There've been a few ad hominems I've seen in other venues that suggest that somehow people who are opposed to this ruling are to blame because the law was passed by Clinton. I guess because he's a democrat? It seems kind of vague and I'm not sure I understand the point of it. If it's a bad law then it's a bad law, it doesn't matter who created it or passed it into being.

Anyway, the applicability of RFRA is actually somewhat tenuous in this instance, though clearly Alito thinks it's relevant. The link I shared and Ginsburg's dissent both address it. Relevant quote:

Amy Davidson said:

Can a for-profit corporation even have religious beliefs—can it be a person acting out of sacred conviction, in the sense of either the First Amendment or the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a law Hobby Lobby cites)? Alito doesn’t see why not; it doesn’t seem fair to him that the owners of a business should have to forgo either identifying its religious rights with their own “or the benefits, available to their competitors, of operating as corporations.” But corporations create a legal separation between owners and businesses that protects them in many ways; why is the upside a presumptive right and not any downside?
Click to expand...

This aligns with my prior arguments that a corporate entity should not have a right to religious freedom. I don't think there's much more I can say to further elucidate the position.

Herculite · Jul 2, 2014

Martian said: ↑

This aligns with my prior arguments that a corporate entity should not have a right to religious freedom. I don't think there's much more I can say to further elucidate the position.
Click to expand...

Even businesses with one employee are a corporation, if they are smart anyways. Corporations are private property not government property. There is a good reason only the two most liberal judges on the supreme court wanted to touch that.

martian · Jul 2, 2014

A person can't be private property. If a corporation is private property, a corporation is not a person.

Nobody's saying corporations shouldn't be private property. There are rules to incorporation, though. There's a process, and there are things that you can and cannot do. Using your corporation as a megaphone to impose your moral judgements on your employees is the point of contention here.

The power dynamic between employers and their employees is heavily weighted in favour of the employer as it is. They must be controlled to limit abuse. This is not a controversial opinion. We all agree that labour laws are valid and necessary. We're not changing the face of the system here, just suggesting that this thing that they're doing is something they should be not able to do.

Baraka_Guru · Jul 2, 2014

This might clear up some things about what the impact is and what's at stake: 5 myths about the Hobby Lobby case, debunked | MSNBC

oneputt66 · Jul 2, 2014

I really try and not get involved with political or religious discussions (in person or online), as they never end well. I have never witnessed one side of the argument suddenly enlighten their debate partner and everyone walk away happy. The simple truth always comes down that we believe our position is correct and the other person in ignorant or closed minded. Most people are not capable of having a calm logical discussion / debate of the topic.
Even on this board (that I chose to join based on the general open mindedness of the members), there has been no shortage of name calling and finger pointing towards those that don't happen to believe as you do.
Not having been a member here very long and not knowing any of you personally (at least that I know of), I would venture to "guess" that the majority of you that think this court decision is the worst thing that has ever come out of the legal system, also believe that the "right" to an abortion is listed in the constitution. All legal decisions are rife with those who believe that those high and mighty judges got it completely wrong.

rogue49 · Jul 2, 2014

And just to show how much of this is going to become a clusterfuck...
Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order

You're about to get "religious freedom" announcements from many "closely held" companies wanting every kind of verboten refusal.
Good example of the Theory of Unintended Consequences.

What we really need is a Voter Bill of Rights,
with one of the amendments defining what IS a citizen or person...and what is NOT. (a business or entity)
and what the rights of citizens employed or interacting with or within an entity have.
(amongst all the other new amendments defining voting & donation differences)

And as one sarcastic article wrote, what if it's a ultra-conservative Islamic business wanting all employees under sharia law??
Or a ultra-conservative Jewish business that refuses women to be in certain sections, roles or levels of the company.
How will that go down??

This is not just about Christian values now.

Baraka_Guru · Jul 4, 2014

More on the religious groups who want LGBT hiring exemptions: After Hobby Lobby, Faith Leaders Want Right To LGBT Discrimination | Advocate.com

This is all based the idea that "religious freedom" includes being permitted to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

Shadowex3 · Jul 4, 2014

Called it ages ago. They think that not being allowed to persecute others is the same as being persecuted themselves.

Levite · Jul 4, 2014

I've been on vacation, or I would've posted to this at the start.

Just to get on record, this decision is some monstrous bullshit. This is not freedom of religion. This is the opposite of freedom of religion. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that the religious beliefs of individuals who may control a majority of the stock of a certain company trumps the beliefs or rights of the individuals who are employed by the company-- especially when it comes to personal matters entirely unrelated to the company and its operation.

I'm willing to say that an out-and-out religious organization has grounds to refuse to empower its employees to do something against the religion of the organization. But I see no possible rationale for granting such extraordinary exemptions from basic health care provision to a chain of shops that sells paper goods and tchotchke-making crap. Unless they can prove to us all that they believe that their god ordained that they worship him by selling paper goods and tchotchke-making crap and no other way, I call bullshit.

Religious freedom is about tolerance. It's about everybody getting to make their own religious decisions, or decisions that some consider religious and some don't, and not have such decisions forced on them, either by the government or by their employers or anyone else. And in any case, health care ought to be private. A great way to avoid this whole morass is to simply provide all benefits, not poke into the health care decisions that employees pursue, and presume that everyone will make moral choices, whatever the hell one thinks those are.

And, of course, as is now happening, this kind of decision is an absolute mine field, giving potential protection to all kinds of crazy radical fundamentalist shit-- as long as it's Christian fundamentalist. Because I guarantee you, if this were about Muslims or Jews or Hindus or whatnot wanting the exact same sort of idiotic "freedom" the court would've sent them packing with their nads on a platter.

But in any case, it's not really about Christian preferentialism, or anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish bias or anything else. It's about the unhealthy cultivation of fundamentalist religion in the far-right conservative political community. No sane religious person would demand this kind of "freedom," any more than most sane progressive, centrist, or even some center-right politicos would think this kind of decision anything but disastrous.

Bullshit, I say again.

redravin · Aug 2, 2014

Well this should be fun.

Hobby Lobby Backfires As Satanic Temple Demands a Religious Exemption

Now, a Satanic Temple based in New York is demanding a religious exemption based on the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling that allowed artificial legal instruments (corporations) to eliminate contraceptives from employee’s prescription plans because they contravene the corporation’s deeply-held religious beliefs. Where the evangelical corporations are using their religious liberty to deny a woman’s right to decide, with their physician, their reproductive health choices, the Satanists are using their religious liberty to defend women from “pernicious encroachment of informed consent laws” regarding abortion, and to assert their religious freedom from the “burden of state-mandated religious informational abortion materials.”

According to a spokesman for the Satanic Temple, Lucian Greaves, “The Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact. This was made clear when they allowed Hobby Lobby to claim certain contraceptives were abortifacients, when in fact they are not. Because of the respect the Court has given to religious beliefs, and the fact that our beliefs are based on best available knowledge, we expect that our belief in the illegitimacy of state mandated ‘informational’ material is enough to exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs, from having to receive them.”

The Satanic Temple believes that when the Supreme Court allowed corporations that pray and sing hymns to god to define contraceptives as abortion, the 5 conservative Catholic justices placed Hobby Lobby’s religious exemptions above all know medical scientific definitions. According to the Satanists, “what’s good for contraceptives, is good for anti-abortion laws,” and they are rightly concerned that their members, and women in general, are victims of several state laws requiring physicians to force women seeking an abortion to listen to state-mandated evangelical lies and propaganda about the dangers of terminating a pregnancy.

On Monday, the Satanic Temple released a press statementoutlining its intent to use its deeply-held religious beliefs to assist women, whose bodies Satanists believe are “inviolable and subject to one’s own will alone” to make their “own decisions regarding personal health based on the best scientific understanding, regardless of the religious or political beliefs of others.” The Temple also warned evangelicals that “this is but the first campaign in a series of Women’s Health initiatives the Satanic Temple intend to make public in the near future.”

To further aid women seeking an abortion, the Temple posted aletter on its website women can present to their doctors explaining that the evangelical propaganda and unscientific lies included in the “informed consent process violates their deeply held religious beliefs.” The letter also comes in the form of a T-shirt women can wear, and doctors can read, before they force women to sit through state-mandated religious propaganda about abortion.
Click to expand...

I'm sure most doctors would go along with any woman who walked wearing on of these T-shirts or carrying the signed paper.
I just don't know if there would be enough of a mass of woman doing it to make the courts do anything to change the law.

Street Pattern · Aug 2, 2014

oneputt66 said: ↑

I would venture to "guess" that the majority of you that think this court decision is the worst thing that has ever come out of the legal system
Click to expand...

The worst thing ever? That's a pretty high bar. Worse than Dred Scott? Worse than U.S. v. Korematsu? Worse than Plessy v. Ferguson? Worse than Buck v. Bell?

I don't like the Hobby Lobby decision, but next to the greatest atrocities in American legal history, it kind of pales.

oneputt66 said: ↑

also believe that the "right" to an abortion is listed in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't "listed" in the Constitution. But it flows from the idea that the Constitution implies a right of privacy.

Most legal critics of Roe v. Wade think Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, states may not prohibit married couples from obtaining or using contraception) was wrongly decided, because it found a right of privacy in the Constitution.

It is amusing to see conservative politicians (I think Rick Perry was one) asked whether they think the Constitution protects privacy, and coming up with the "wrong" (yes) answer.

As a lawyer, I have mixed feelings about Roe v. Wade, but I shudder to think of the awful ramifications of a ruling that the Constitution no longer protects privacy. Too much law has been built on that point to abandon it now.

oneputt66 said: ↑

All legal decisions are rife with those who believe that those high and mighty judges got it completely wrong.
Click to expand...

One can disagree with a U.S. Supreme Court decision, and I often do, but in our system, they are the absolute final authority on what the Constitution means. We can call them wrong, but by definition, they are never wrong.

Shadowex3 · Aug 3, 2014

Constitutionally they can't be called wrong by anyone but themselves. Empirically they're capable of being factually incorrect, and legally they're capable of judicial misconduct. But since they got away with open bribery from the Kochs at this point I don't know what would get them called on that.

As for the right to privacy... It's one of those things I'd love to see amended to the constitution, as well as clarifying the 4th to apply to digital property, but I doubt it will ever happen and messing with the constitution right now would open us up to far worse.

WildKard616 · Sep 2, 2014

Not big on corporations basically near having the rights of humans...next they'll have weapons to fight off "terrorists" and then it'll end up like that Sylvester Stallone movie where they have wall tasers to shock anyone who'd spray paint on a building bc that's so "evil" ..

Hate how this worlds heading ..try looking ahead and tell me you truly believe things are getting better for anyone besides the rich

Log in or Sign up

Supreme Court Rules with Hobby Lobby on Contraception

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

cynthetiq Administrator Staff Member Donor

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

cynthetiq Administrator Staff Member Donor

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

cynthetiq Administrator Staff Member Donor

Cayvmann Very Tilted

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

Herculite Very Tilted

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

oneputt66 New Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Shadowex3 Very Tilted

Levite Levitical Yet Funky

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

Street Pattern Very Tilted

Shadowex3 Very Tilted

WildKard616 Vertical

Log in or Sign up

Supreme Court Rules with Hobby Lobby on Contraception

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

cynthetiq Administrator Staff Member Donor

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

cynthetiq Administrator Staff Member Donor

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

cynthetiq Administrator Staff Member Donor

Cayvmann Very Tilted

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

Herculite Very Tilted

martian Server Monkey Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

oneputt66 New Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Shadowex3 Very Tilted

Levite Levitical Yet Funky

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

Street Pattern Very Tilted

Shadowex3 Very Tilted

WildKard616 Vertical

Useful Searches