Bitsy

The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment states that no person can be elected to the presidency for more than two terms. The Constitution is protected from Executive Order.

Please explain Hillary Clinton's misunderstanding of the ruling. Thanks. I wonder if your remark is responsible for Shady's opinion about Hillary not grasping the ruling?

As can be seen from the studies of two highly respected universities, NYU and Columbia, not known for their ignorance, 52% of US employees work for employers affected by this ruling. No one is suggesting that that all employers will uses this ruling for their benefit but it is theoretical possible. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a-lot-of-people-could-be-affected-by-the-supreme-courts-birth-control-decision/

Good, maybe then he will tell me how Hillary misunderstood the ruling.

You got it!!! Maybe now Shady will also.

Which of her statements did you find nonsensical and for what reason?

Why are you avoiding pointing out what she didn't grasp about the ruling? Why don't you read her statement and then get back to me so we can discuss.

You may suggest it but there is no evidence to support your suggestion.

Silly me, of course you are right.

I see nothing to suggest that Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat, does not understand the ruling and the impact it will have on other companies who object to birth control.

So you don't believe in the morality of other religions, Judaism for example? Which sect of Christian morality should we follow? Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, LDS, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic, or more traditional sects, Methodist, Baptists, etc.

Whose morality, yours or mine?

Good response. I am sure if we drilled down into the two different systems we would find that the coverage differs in many other respects.

And how is that relative to this discussion?

This didn't take long. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ala-broadcaster-applauds-Supreme-Court-decision-5589738.php

Let see if this help.... -this ruling only applies where the ownership is, essentially, an individual or small group: The Catholic yarn shop would qualify under this ruling. it doesn't mean that every religious belief would be exempted in similar fashion. Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law Contraceptives are condemned by the Catholic church and if the owners have a history of supporting Catholic teachings and practices , they can petition the court for an exemption to providing all contraceptives under this Supreme Court ruling.

That is true. My bad for misunderstand that you were speaking of a caveat.

Misunderstanding, I thought you knew that the mandate for large business was 2015, I didn't think you though it was already in effect.

\ Not my beliefs, Shady, the belief of the Catholic yarn shop, duh.

No, Shady, the small business employers are exempt from the ACA mandate until 2016. L

And now, based on this ruling, there is nothing to prevent them from using the same argument....against my personal religious beliefs. See, Shady, this is the slippery slope.

Please tell me which employers are exempt from the ACA. Thanks.

Unless I am totally missing something, Shady, the law requiring contraceptive coverage was not ruled unconstitutional. Consequenceless sex is up to the individual, and the law guarantees that a woman has the right to choose how to minimize her consequences. The men that I know are pleased that a woman opts for consequenceless sex, especially if single and not ready to make a commitment or if married, they have more children than they can afford.

Catholic institutions are opposed to all birth control also, in case you didn't know, not just the 4 methods listed by Hobby Lobby.

These contraceptives are part of ACA and ACA is the law. Lest you forget, the employee does in fact pay for them, they are part of their salary/benefit package.