The American Patriarchy Association didn't want to leave anything to chance with its poll about the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case, so it gave readers a choice between being excited that God answered their prayers (and yet Barack Obama obstinately remains in office), or being excited that the religious freedom to keep sluts in their place has been preserved, or being excited that Hobby Lobby bravely resisted being mandated to provide the very same insurance that they had voluntarily provided until 2012.
But then you get <a href="http:\/\/illustrationwatercooler.fil...\/2009\/11\/lysistratamen.jpg" target="_blank">this.</a> Who wants to see those guys sullenly moping around all over the city?
Yes, Erick, son of Erick - it&#039;s all about consequence-free sexytimes. It can&#039;t possibly be anything else, like giving women the same rights to control their bodies that you have.
You know what would make an awesome Corporato-American &#039;deeply held religious belief&#039; for anyone forming a corporation? That ALL interest on money is &quot;usury&quot; and, you know, that guy Jesus was against it, with his Money Lenders all up in the Temple ragey stuff.
So paying interest on any loans is heretofore going against your religion. This is <i>specifically allowed</i> based on this decision. This decision only automatically exempted certain things as not-applicable, like transfusions and immunizations, definitely not things like this money-lending usury business, which falls far outside of the insurance-mandate purview.
I get that kinda stuff from Heritage and Judicial Watch and their ilk. My best guess is it&#039;s because I donate to the USO. Kinda sad that being nice to soldiers is a marketing angle for right wingers.
Nothing about Clarence Thomas standing firm, like velvet covered cement?
Oh, for fuck&#039;s sake.
<a href="http:\/\/cheezburger.com\/7854670592" target="_blank">The correct answer </a> is (almost) <a href="http:\/\/priorypost.org\/2012\/04\/18\/student-shocked-to-learn-that-c-isnt-always-the-correct-answer\/" target="_blank">always &quot;c.&quot;</a>
But then you get <a href="http:\/\/illustrationwatercooler.fil...\/2009\/11\/lysistratamen.jpg" target="_blank">this.</a> Who wants to see those guys sullenly moping around all over the city?
3a. Doing &quot;shotguns,&quot; running amok and downing Belgian waffles.
It was suspiciously easy to per-suede the majority of the justices.
You meant 1855, right?
Yes, Erick, son of Erick - it&#039;s all about consequence-free sexytimes. It can&#039;t possibly be anything else, like giving women the same rights to control their bodies that you have.
My poll? 1. Headdesk 2. Naps and weeping 3. Running amok with a shotgun and waffle iron.
It would appear that the Supreme Court is dominated by the town elders from &quot;Footloose.&quot;
Now that the SCOTUS has ruled that women using contraception is sinful, can I just enjoy the rest of 1955 in peace?
You know what would make an awesome Corporato-American &#039;deeply held religious belief&#039; for anyone forming a corporation? That ALL interest on money is &quot;usury&quot; and, you know, that guy Jesus was against it, with his Money Lenders all up in the Temple ragey stuff.
So paying interest on any loans is heretofore going against your religion. This is <i>specifically allowed</i> based on this decision. This decision only automatically exempted certain things as not-applicable, like transfusions and immunizations, definitely not things like this money-lending usury business, which falls far outside of the insurance-mandate purview.
In America when religious law trumps secular law, it&#039;s called &quot;Scalia Law&quot;.
I get that kinda stuff from Heritage and Judicial Watch and their ilk. My best guess is it&#039;s because I donate to the USO. Kinda sad that being nice to soldiers is a marketing angle for right wingers.