Not a good week for the emperor . 1st he saw his party take a drubbing at the polls after he claimed that even though he was not on the ballot ,his polices were .
Now SCOTUS has granted certiorari in the King v Burwell challenge to Obamacare .

Obamacare grants subsidies to low incomes who purchase insurance through the exchanges that states have set up. But even though the Dems created bogus incentives for the states to participate , only 16 states actually created their own exchange . 34 states did not . Then the IRS and the emperor decreed that even though these states did not set up the exchanges ,people in those states would be eligible for the subsidies as if the state had set up the exchange . The plaintiff challenged that decision because it violates the clear language of the law.

The Adm and Dem Congress claims that the original language was some kinda typo or technicality ,and they always intended to grant subsidies to the eligible regardless . That may be so ,but more likely the Dems made some secret agreements to get Obamacare passed through the reconciliation process to appease their Trojan horse Congressional delegation from purple states or red states.
And of course the Dems could've negotiated a legislative fix to their sloppy use of language if they indeed intended the subsidies to apply to all eligible . Instead the emperor and the IRS decided to do what the emperor has done his whole reign .....rule by decree.

The plaintiffs lost in both district court and the 4th Circus court in Richmond Va . But at least 4 justices on SCOTUS think that they should revisit Obamacare on this issue.

There is another challenge to Obamacare making it's way up the court system ,and SCOTUS will probably combine them in their decision. The Halbig v. Sebelius case is currently in the DC Circus where a 3 judge panel threw out the exchanges ;but the full DC Circus (packed by Harry Reid's decision to use the nuclear option for judicial selection thus even ending the Senate filibuster ) voided the decision of the panel.

Now ,if SCOTUS decides with the plaintiffs that the Federal subsidies to residents of states that have not set up exchanges are unconstitutional in that they violate the plain language of the law,it is hard to imagine how Obamacare survives. Without the subsidies ,only the sickest would sign up making insurance rates skyrocket and .creating what the adm. calls the "death spiral".

Now SCOTUS will probably rule on this case toward the end of this session. It is doubtful that they will toss out the whole law. Chief Justice Roberts saw to that already .He is a proponent of original intent of legislation....evidently even if it does violate the Constitution (thus his inventing a reason to declare the law constitutional) . It is more likely that they will send the law back to Congress to make the legislative fixes needed. But ;this time it will be a Congress with clear Republican majorities. Obamacare may not be repealed . But it certainly will be replaced .

Replaced with what? That's what everybody has been asking since it was passed and repubs have tried replacing it. It like the attempts at privatizing Medicare and have been met with "Keep your hands off my Medicare!" (same with Social Security).

I can't wait to see what the repubs replace Obamacare with if they take it away from those that have signed up, paid for, and made use of what they have now. Replace is an easy word to say but doing it will not be. Lip service, rhetoric, and spin won't save the repubs from the markets, nor the populace Tom.

Not in the face of an easy quick fix! 2016 has begun!

specific bills designed to reform ,replace ,and repeal sat collecting dust on Harry Reid's desk for 4 years .Yes replace is an easy word and it will be very easy to improve the disastrous health care system that is Obamacare .
I can't tell you what will come out of the Congress .I can guarantee it will be more bipartisan than the cr@p sandwich the Dems fed us . You know my preferences . If you think subsidies are good then by all means grant them so that individuals can shop for their own insurance in the private market . Make insurance portable beyond state lines . End much of the ridiculous mandates that Obamacare brought which will drive up the cost of coverage as early as next year (note that the emperor begged the insurance companies to not make new premiums public until after the election.)

Well Tom as they say you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, haven't heard much about this lately so it can't be as bad in some respects as first thought, you haven't had outright rebellion. We all know what something designed by a committee looks like and it just might be the ACA, this is why governments should be allowed to get on with their legislative programs without obstruction and then what ever the result is, they own it

, haven't heard much about this lately so it can't be as bad in some respects as first thought, you haven't had outright rebellion.

not much could've been done until now . These court cases have been working their way through the judicial system for a while . Also the emperor has made various exceptions to the law by decree to blunt the negative impacts until after the elections. This year the employer mandate goes into effect. Let's see how the reaction is when the insurance companies start publishing the new premiums .

Don't understand why medical care costs so much over there, too much litigation I suspect so the costs are really insurance companies protecting themselves

too much litigation I suspect
it's a huge factor . Not only the insurance companies protecting themselves ,but also doctors doing too many expensive diagnostics to CYA; and adding the cost of liability insurance to the bottom line of their businesses . Tort reform was one of the points of reform I did not mention above ,but have done so in the past .

You are talking about changing a culture Tom

My prediction: SCOTUS will decide that the obvious intent of the law is for exchanges to exist for all to use, and for subsidies to be available to all who qualify. Not providing subsidies to people who are required to use the federal exchange was clearly no one's intent. It will be a 5-4 decision with Roberts being the deciding vote.

I don't foresee any Obamacare-related legislation making it into law until after the next presidential election cycle. Even minor changes that both sides can agree on won't happen, because any discussion on improving ObamaCare as opposed to eliminating it is a non-starter for too many of the GOP.

I may have to agree with you E, as I doubt the courts with take a technicality to disrupt markets and lives at this point in time. I fear though the possibility they will throw a clarification back to congress who will do NOTHING or worse rewrite the whole thing. Republican legislatures have had no problem denying ACA care to their own constituents so not a stretch to assume they wouldn't stop at a ruling of intent by SCOTUS.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/McConnellcare-1024x721.jpg

Congress will indeed try to rewrite it, and Obama will veto whatever they concoct. Hence nothing will change until and unless one party controls both houses of Congress plus the White House.

One would think that they already know they haven't enough votes to override a presidential veto in the first place. So the ball is truly in the hands of SCOTUS, specifically Justice Roberts.

LOL, waiting for 2016 is no less a risk since many current repubs will also be up for re election as dems were this year. The Senate could change yet again.

The political reality is nothing stays the same

interesting this new appreciation for the intent .

Here is some intent for you .......from one of the main architects of Obamacare . (hope Chief Justice Roberts is listening to this admission of deception )
GRUBER: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage." - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI&feature=youtu.be)

He pulled a fast one . Good thing for him that he could count on the "stupidity of the American people " .

“the Court does not revise legislation... just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly.” “Such anomalies often arise from statute,”...“this Court has no roving license" .Justice Kagan (Michigan v Bay Mills Indian Community ).
But why should we expect a liberal justice to be consistent ?

The truth is that since there was no transparency in the process ,we don't know what was the intent . We can only guess and surmise . There were many back room deals that were made to get the law passed ;mostly amongst the Dems. All we really know is that the IRS’s ​and the emperor decided to execute the law they WISH Congress had ​enacted, rather the law Congress actually enacted.

btw . There was no typo or ambiguity in Sec 36 B where the plain text is found. As it reads ; The phrase “Exchange established by a state under Section 1311” ​leaves nothing to the IRS’s imagination​.​It does not say “Exchange established by a state or by the federal government.” It was only to be rewarded for participants in state exchanges .

That was part of the reward for the states setting up the exchanges. What Congress did not anticipate was that most of the state would opt out.

Sometimes you have to wonder who is in charge. Where I come from federal law supercedes state law where there is conflict. You would wonder that a law has to be proscriptive in order for the spirit of the law to be adopted. I expect the spirit of rebellion is still alive and well and living in the US of A. What is the point of enacting a law that is deliberately vague? Tell me Tom, what happens over there? Does your legislation get written by the bums you elect to the house? Or is it drafted by what we describe as parliamentary draftsmen so that the language is clear and intent unambiguous?

Or is it drafted by what we describe as parliamentary draftsmen so that the language is clear and intent unambiguous?


The law was written by lawyers ,staffers from Capitol Hill and K Street . As demonstrated above ,there was a clear intent of deception . Now when Gruber claims that there had to be a lack of transparency to full the "stupid " Americans ,who do you think he was talking about ? It wasn't conservatives or even Repubics . None of them brought into this idea of Obamacare . They were out to dupe their own constituency . All of us opposed tried to warn everyone that their plan was a scam .

The law was not published before the vote and then Speaker of the House Madame Mimi made the outrageous comment that they would have to vote on the law to find out what was in the law. Well now we know .
There are a few good ideas that came out of the law ;but most of it has to be scrapped before it's too late. What we are going to see in the next year is declining enrollment ,and more employers dropping coverage for their employees. We have already seen a redifinition of full time/part time employment due to this law. We are seeing domestic manufacturers of medical devices being hammered by the tax and becoming less competititive as a result .And there are still many uninsured .There has been at best a marginal decline in the number of uninsured . Next year you will see more people dropping their coverage or being dropped as the fine is the most attractive option for many folks (especially the young who Gruber admitted above are getting the royal shaft ).

I see it doesn't get that impartial construction

Chief Justice Roberts and SCOTUS doesn't believe in the plain language of the Constitution .Why would they concern themselves with the plain language of a law ? Today they decided that when the law says 'Exchange established by the State ' it really means 'Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.'.... If the emperor decrees it so.
Don't forget those "penumbras" and "emanations" says Justice Roberts who has now fully joined with the living Constitution crowd, who think of language like Humpty Dumpty did. What the emperor decrees is the law ,is the law.

Given the court's decision, there's no benefit now for a state to run an exchange....
Bringing us that much closer to single payer ;which has been the goal of the statists all along.




“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.”

The plaintiffs in this case had a very weak argument, and given that they lost the original case and also every round of appeals it's not surprising that the supremes decided the way they did. The intent of the law was clear, and frankly if the supremes had decided for the palintiffs it would have been a disaster for millions of people, which the Republicans in Congress (among others) would certainly not want to have to deal with.

Repubs are probably more relieved than anybody else, because they can keep hollering foul, but don't have to reveal the specifics of their own better grand plan, which everybody knows was lip service anyway.

Tell Cruz game over!

The plaintiffs in this case had a very weak argument, and given that they lost the original case and also every round of appeals it's not surprising that the supremes decided the way they did. The intent of the law was clear, and frankly if the supremes had decided for the palintiffs it would have been a disaster for millions of people, which the Republicans in Congress (among others) would certainly not want to have to deal with.


“In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.” says Roberts . Night is Day and Day is Night . Humpty Dumpty did eventually fall off the wall.

The disaster you predict would've happened only would've happened because the Democrat Congress rammed a disasterous law up our keyster .


Repubs are probably more relieved than anybody else, because they can keep hollering foul, but don't have to reveal the specifics of their own better grand plan, which everybody knows was lip service anyway.

Tell Cruz game over!

You keep saying that while ignoring the many proposals the Repubics have proposed ...Most recently by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisc.

A tight keyster is covered under the law, and repubs can put the proposals in writing and pass them if they so chose.

The plaintiffs in this case had a very weak argument, and given that they lost the original case and also every round of appeals it's not surprising that the supremes decided the way they did. The intent of the law was clear, and frankly if the supremes had decided for the palintiffs it would have been a disaster for millions of people, which the Republicans in Congress (among others) would certainly not want to have to deal with.

Here is the clear intent from one of the authors of the law


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U

I expect we will be treated to 18 months of attacks on obamacare as the presidential race hots up, it's a gift for any candidate to exploit and with so many in the race opinions will be unbridled

Of the 6 million that would have lost their subsidy, how many were young people who did not really want to buy insurance in the first place?

Was to be expected but they will change their mind when the "tax" bites, it's a matter of education sometimes you have to get bitten in the pocket

Relating back, there is something wrong with the healthcare system. The "Obamacare did not fix it, and market pricing will find its way up over time.

As an example, for what it is worth, I just bought new health insurance plans for myself and my son. (my wife has a health care plan subsidized by the Chinese government)

The plan for my son is about 100 USD a month, with a 150 USD deductable and pays 100 percent after that. It is good in any country of the word, except for United States. Anywhere in Europe and Asia. The company is one of the major companies in the US market.

My wife, pays about 200 USD a year for a fairly complete hospital plan. (not doctor office visits)

Relating back, there is something wrong with the healthcare system. The "Obamacare did not fix it, and market pricing will find its way up over time.

As an example, for what it is worth, I just bought new health insurance plans for myself and my son. (my wife has a health care plan subsidized by the Chinese government)

The plan for my son is about 100 USD a month, with a 150 USD deductable and pays 100 percent after that. It is good in any country of the word, except for United States. Anywhere in Europe and Asia. The company is one of the major companies in the US market.

My wife, pays about 200 USD a year for a fairly complete hospital plan. (not doctor office visits)
There will be an out of control spiraling of costs. We are looking at increased penalties ....oops I mean taxes for young-uns which will mean more of their limited income that they need to set up families will be going to a bloated plan they don't need for their care . Basically theirs pays for the geezers .

We will also see that states have NO more incentive to run exchanges and will drop out knowing that the Feds will be picking up the tab /subsidies.

We are looking at the employer madate kicking in (unless the emperor and the IRS decrees a delay in that too ). Employers will more frequently decide that it's more economical to drop their employees medical benefits and let the nanny state cover them in the national exchange.

Already doctors are getting out of the primary care business. Here we see these drive in clinics popping up all over the place . Nurses and Physician Assistance check you out and only refer you to an MD specialist if they cannot prescribe some drug for you to solve your medical problem. Often they just tell you to go to the ER.

And now we are looking at the reality that it's impossibe to do wholesale changes on this pig of a law because we have an uber - legislator appointed for life sitting as the Chief Justice of the United States .

“In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
WTF ????? Who gave him that power ? I'm for impeaching him .

You love picking out tidbits that support your opinions and that's okay, but as usual there is a lot more that can be considered,

The 8 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Saved Obamacare | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/king-burwell-obamacare-best-lines-john-roberts)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to even see the benefits and positives the law has already brought to real people and one would wonder if you Tom would feel the same way if you were one of those that the free market left behind by not being able to afford health insurance at all. Even if you are under employer subsidized insurance, I doubt you would be keen on losing your benefits and not be compensated with a bigger paycheck would you?

I would imagine then that every Republican presidential candidate will have high on his platform a statement about repealing of ACA. Let's see how this plays out.

The republicans have been hollering repeal the ACA for the last 4 years non stop. They have been trying to repeal social security, medicare, and voting rights even longer. They are always hollering. Nature of the beast.

I see Cruz wants to repeal net neutrality - I don't think he even knows what that is.

I would imagine then that every Republican presidential candidate will have high on his platform a statement about repealing of ACA. Let's see how this plays out.
It would be a waste of time as long as SCOTUS is a branch of the legislature and the emperor sits on the throne . It will have to be replaced incrimentally . I expect the medical device tax will be repealed 1st .

You love picking out tidbits that support your opinions and that's okay, but as usual there is a lot more that can be considered,

The 8 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Saved Obamacare | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/king-burwell-obamacare-best-lines-john-roberts)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to even see the benefits and positives the law has already brought to real people and one would wonder if you Tom would feel the same way if you were one of those that the free market left behind by not being able to afford health insurance at all. Even if you are under employer subsidized insurance, I doubt you would be keen on losing your benefits and not be compensated with a bigger paycheck would you?

Maybe you didn't listen to this from Gruber ;the architect of Obamacare . Listen very closely at the 25 second point to the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U

The intent of the law was clear ,and the clear language of the law left no ambiguity for interpretation.

That's just one guy Tom, and he is entitled to his opinion.

BREAKING NEWS

Same Sex marriage legal nationwide


​Another debate ends badly for the right! What a week!

​
Another debate ends badly for the right! What a week! yes and we did not even talk about that Texas case they decided which upheld disparate-impact claims . It's a dark week for the nation and the Constitution. If we weren't in a post-Constitutional America before ;we are now .


That's just one guy Tom, and he is entitled to his opinion.


Nope ,it is the way the law was intentionally written . The emperor and his IRS changed the law when he saw that the states weren't buying his bs.

This will all come back to bite the Dems when and if an imperial Repubic becomes President . We'll see how they react to the tricks when the worm turns .

Yes it has been a quite a week for the conservatives:


Bristol Palin, who launched an abstinence campaign after giving birth as an unwed teenage mother, announced Thursday she is pregnant with her second child out-of-wedlock.

Jon Stewart come back! LOL

Totally agree Tom, a republican president and congress is a dark future for everybody except really rich guys.

Taking bets?

Totally agree Tom, a republican president and congress is a dark future for everybody except really rich guys.

Taking bets?

It could go either way . I don't think there will ever be wholesale changes or repeals of the law as long as the uber-legislator sits as Chief Justice . At this point the law is as much his creation as the Dems . I think the Repubs will nibble at the edges and change some aspects of the law. But the framework is in place for the total takeover of health care . All they need to do now is get rid of the middle men . The suckers in the Insurance industry that sold their souls for the promise of big rewards are going to feel the wrath of the masses as they get blamed for all the Obamacare failings .
So yes if you can take all the bad decisions in the last 8 years and successfully blame "the rich" ;then you'll begin Evita's reign.

But the framework is in place for the total takeover of health care .You mean what every industrialized country has done but yours?

you make it sound like that's a good thing.

It is.

the way I see it is that by twisting the language into a pretzel ,Roberts has allowed the Democrats to massively expand the power and reach of government in ways that make the governement even more tyranical than it was . The legacy of the emperor is preserved .

What's your solution and which candidate supports it?

It is.
Not under this administration it's not.

BREAKING NEWS

Same Sex marriage legal nationwide


The lefties will not be happy ...they will continue their relentless persecution of religious liberty . The few cases we've seen with florists ,bakers and caterers will spread nation wide. Soon they will go after churches that refuse to sanctify their "marriage" .

Combined with yesterday’s ruling we can only conclude that Constitutional federalism is no more. America is now a centralized country, comparable to individual European states.

Not under this administration it's not.
My disabled son thinks it is.

Not under this administration it's not.I tend to believe that under any administration in the U.S. it will not be done properly. Your political system is broken possibly beyond repair. The corporate donors and special interest groups run the show now.


persecution of religious libertyHow does two women marrying affect your religious liberty?

Not under this administration it's not.

Republicans aren't ready for cradle to grave medicare for all. The groundwork has been laid for it by this administration, though.

Let me start by saying that none of you are in healthcare. None of you see how this impacts the care you currently receive, have received, or will receive under Slowbamacare.

I, on the other hand, see it on a daily basis.

You all can do your internet research, you can research MSNBC, FOXNEWS, etc. ad nauseum, but I am on the front lines. Nurse patient ratios have increased causing you and your loved ones to receive substandard care. Hospitals aren't being reimbursed for readmissions if a patient is non-compliant with home therapies if said patient is readmitted within a 30-day period if the diagnosis is in any way related to the original diagnosis. How do the hospitals combat that? By cutting staff.

It's not a good thing unless you don't mind waiting 30 minutes for me to answer your call light because I have 8 other patients to attend to. It's not a good thing when you, as a nurse, is told that "you all have taken the same board exam so you should be able to attend to any patient." This is what we, as nurses are being told.

Doctors took the same board exams, so it's okay for a dermatologist to do a mitral valve replacement on you mother? That dermatologist took the same boards, right?

That's the profit motive hard at work.
You also have not experienced our healthcare system which has never let me down.

I tend to believe that under any administration in the U.S. it will not be done properly. Your political system is broken possibly beyond repair. The corporate donors and special interest groups run the show now.

How does two women marrying affect your religious liberty?

When a baker is compelled to bake a cake for them against their religious convictions ;When a florist is compelled to make floral arrangements for them against their religious convictions ;when a caterer is compelled to serve them food against their religious convictions ;when a DJ gets in legal trouble for not entertaining their "wedding " reception then everyone's religious liberty is threatened . And those scenarios were already happening in states where homosexual "marriage " was legalized. It won't be long before churches face legal jeopardy for refusing to conduct the ceremony .

Hospitals aren't being reimbursed for readmissions if a patient is non-compliant with home therapies if said patient is readmitted within a 30-day period if the diagnosis is in any way related to the original diagnosis. How do the hospitals combat that? By cutting staff.
What's the percentage of non-compliant patients who are readmitted within 30 days?

.
You also have not experienced our healthcare system which has never let me down.

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits (http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/editorials-for-students/canadian-health-care-we-so-envy-lies-in-ruins-its-architect-admits/)

They use to use skin color as a reason not to serve certain people, now they use gender as an excuse not to serve certain people. It's still discrimination, no matter the excuse.

You wouldn't go for separate water fountains as a compromise would you?

When a baker is compelled to bake a cake for them against their religious convictions
Why is a baker bringing his religion into the marketplace? I, as a Christian, actually helped a Muslim or two with resumes when I had a resume business. Their money was just as green as the Christians' money.

They use to use skin color as a reason not to serve certain people, now they use gender as an excuse not to serve certain people. It's still discrimination, no matter the excuse.

You wouldn't go for separate water fountains as a compromise would you?




Why is a baker bringing his religion into the marketplace? I, as a Christian, actually helped a Muslim or two with resumes when I had a resume business. Their money was just as green as the Christians' money.

Either you believe in religious liberty or you don't . The baker ,florist etc that are forced to serve a religious ceremony against their convictions is being forced to participate in the event .
This is not about skin color or serving homosexuals . If a homosexual went to the same baker and asked for a birthday cake the baker would not have a religious motive to refuse service . So tal ;your comparison to segregation is absurd. This is specifically about the ceremony they are forced to participate in against their convictions .

Either you believe in religious liberty or you don't . The baker ,florist etc that are forced to serve a religious ceremony against their convictions is being forced to participate in the event .
This is not about skin color or serving homosexuals . If a homosexual went to the same baker and asked for a birthday cake the baker would not have a religious motive to refuse service . So tal ;your comparison to segregation is absurd. This is specifically about the ceremony they are forced to participate in against their convictions .
The florist or baker does not participate in the ceremony. He delivers his wares BEFORE the ceremony. Don't Christian florists and bakers sell to non-Christians -- Muslims or atheists or Buddhists?

I didn't say segregation, I said discrimination.


It's still discrimination, no matter the excuse.

I am less worried about the baker than I am the employers and hotel clerks.

Some great people down there, let's hope they keep their word:
Texas Pastor Says He Will Set Himself On Fire In Protest Over Gay Marriage : News : Headlines & Global News (http://www.hngn.com/articles/103690/20150624/texas-pastor-will-set-himself-fire-protest-over-gay-marriage.htm)

Also, about Canada:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.shlRq52nYy

Nice one NK, maybe they will keep running north, or better, sneak south through the fence to Mexico.

Gay marriage? Meh, state's rights no longer exist.

States have no right to discriminate, segregate, or subjugate. Neither does religion.

I hear the dogs barking again, It's happening all over, must be the election season

States have no right to discriminate, segregate, or subjugate. Neither does religion.

No, that's the role of the federal government.


Thispractice of constitutional revision by an unelected committeeof nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagantpraise of liberty, robs the People of the most importantliberty they asserted in the Declaration ofIndependence and won in the Revolution of 1776: thefreedom to govern themselves. Scalia

What does that mean speech you are free from the influence of foreign governments? However by treaty you are not free from the influence of the United Nations so you have lost, given up even, the right to govern yourselves

I haven't given up.

No your government did it for you, it's called democracy

Just because we engage and support other countries does not mean we have given up the responsibility to govern ourselves Clete.

That's pretty wild.

No Tal it's not, the UN charter to which you are a signatory requires that you fall in line with their edicts, so if they put forward a standard on the treatment of refugees for example you are expected to comply irrespective of your own laws, same goes for their sanctions this is why you have a veto on the security council, so you cannot be committed to war on a whim. other nations like my own don't have the same get out clause and they make lots of negative noises about a lot of things including internal issues and you have to allow undesirables into your country to attend their meetings

Yep - give billions to Israel but screw the non-rich americans.

Exactly, but you are not allowed to screw the poor either, it is just the US poor are so much richer than others. If the US wasn't such a big funder they would get much more bad comment from the UN

I didn't say segregation, I said discrimination.



I am less worried about the baker than I am the employers and hotel clerks.

did you not say "You wouldn't go for separate water fountains as a compromise would you? " That is right out of pre-civil rights segregation.

There will be a rash of court cases where the homosexual community will try to punish those who are unaccepting of their "marriage " .As has been shown where states already had homosexual "marriage " statutes ,they play scorched earth on people who have religious objections to participating in their rituals .Now they will have the full weight of Federal law to use as a weapon.

Refusing services to gay customers, is the same mindset as in those pre-segregation days, which are not completely gone or forgotten. They thought they had a right to discriminate back then too, and all were good christians I am sure.

The affected minority is the only difference in this case, but to many it makes no difference. Why shouldn't gays and any minorities have the full legal protection of the court to address the legal chicaneries thats has been practiced against them? Geez there are state that still ban interracial marriages, as well as different races attending the same schools.

Redlining in housing still goes on too Tom, and I remind you of the SCOTUS ruling yesterday for housing discrimination. Naw guy, religious freedom by a few is the new excuse to make yourself superior, and someone else inferior.

Refusing services to gay customers, is the same mindset as in those pre-segregation days, which are not completely gone or forgotten. They thought they had a right to discriminate back then too, and all were good christians I am sure.

The affected minority is the only difference in this case, but to many it makes no difference. Why shouldn't gays and any minorities have the full legal protection of the court to address the legal chicaneries thats has been practiced against them? Geez there are state that still ban interracial marriages, as well as different races attending the same schools.

Redlining in housing still goes on too Tom, and I remind you of the SCOTUS ruling yesterday for housing discrimination. Naw guy, religious freedom by a few is the new excuse to make yourself superior, and someone else inferior.

Actually Tal is isnt the same. And if you cant see that then your blind. There is a clear line for religious freedom and your side wants to destroy it by force. How come your side neglects to mention the other religions that are against gay marriage? There are after all 2 other ones out there that form a majorty status besides Christians.

Why does your side want to live in the past and reject the future until everyone is destroyed ? Doesnt make sense to me that anyone should give up their freedom so easily as to follow like sheeple to the slaughterhouse.


Do you really think the U.S. is no longer or can be a melting pot where everyone has rights and can get along.

Doesnt make sense to me that anyone should give up their freedom so easily as to follow like sheeple to the slaughterhouse.
Who's giving up freedom?

Do you really think the U.S. is no longer or can be a melting pot where everyone has rights and can get along.
So now the US ISN'T a melting pot?

Letting gays get married doesn't take away your freedom at all, if so how? Most people don't even care, and gays are AMERICANS too!!

The affected minority is the only difference in this case, but to many it makes no difference
There is a huge difference between not serving homosexuals and not being compelled to participate in a ceremony that one has religious objections to. Stop trying to blur the distinction I already told you that there is a difference between not selling a cake to a homosexual because that person is a homosexual (which would meet your definition of discrimination ) and being forced to provide a "wedding " cake for that person's wedding . If you can compel the baker to do that then you can just as easily compel a minister to perform the service .
Tell me something . Do you think a Christian adoption service should be required to adopt a child to a homosexual couple despite their objection ?

The baker and florist, business people, do not participate in ANY wedding.

The baker and florist, business people, do not participate in ANY wedding.


Actually yes they do. Atleast if they are good ones. They may play a role that is near the sidelines but they are there to make sure everything goes correctly and according to the customers wishes.

Who's giving up freedom?

So now the US ISN'T a melting pot?


Persons of deeply held religious beleifs may be forced to perform acts that go directly against what they beleive. Since it is currently a right to paticipate or not in a religious beleif then you are mandating by the government what and how you should beleive.

Seems that with this decision the government has placed itself directly into the path of being a religious zealot and forcing others to attend under threat of punishment.

Nope no more melting pot. The government has seen to that.

Since it is currently a right to paticipate or not in a religious beleif then you are mandating by the government what and how you should beleive.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Poke fun if you like but how about proving me wrong ?

According to Tom, just baking a wedding cake is participation enough to go against one's religious beliefs. Like the pharmacist who cannot sell birth control pills. I am sure not all bakers and florists feel that way, and there must be a free market solution, but the gloom and doom end of the world stuff is a bit paranoid. Change and inclusion as set in our own constitution may not be smooth, and not every judge is a liberal bleeding heart, but it seems every time some group wants a piece of the equality dream somebody always finds a reason to deny it.

Obviously we have not arrived at creating that perfect union yet. YOU would have to be blind if you think we have.

Actually yes they do. Atleast if they are good ones. They may play a role that is near the sidelines but they are there to make sure everything goes correctly and according to the customers wishes.
My dad was a minister and officiated at innumerable weddings, including his children's. I have, as an adult, been to scads of weddings. The florist and baker deliver their goods before the wedding, then disappear back to their shops. They don't hang around to make sure of anything.

I will add that I have done many weddings and blessings.

It is at some point, if someone professes to be a Christian, where do they draw line. Most like to talk, and then say we will pray from the safety of their pew on Sunday morning. To me, they are as bad, if perhaps as worst as those who merely go along and do things against their religious teachings.

The idea at least when you read the Bible, there is risks to being a Christian. None of the 12 disciples retired to a rich beach house. Most were tortured or killed for their beliefs. Today in many parts of the world, Christians are put in prison, beaten or killed merely for their beliefs. But they hold on to their beliefs, I doubt if more than 4 or 5 percent of people in America, who "claim" to be Christian, would stand up and declare they are, if they faced torture or death.

There is a simple answer for Christians, all Christian churches, declare that they will no longer obey any law that is against their teachings. They don't worry about tax exemptions, and their members refuse to issue gay marriage license, refuse to have any dealings with gay marriages.

If America really is (and I do not believe it is) it would be simple, the government can not put in jail millions of Christians, it can not take 100's of thousands to court.

And if a few lose their jobs or business, let the churches support and help restore them for doing their Christian duty.

Chuck christians have forgotten to rely on the power of God and this is because many are nominal and do not know that God has no grandchildren.

You want to know where to draw the line? At the biblical standard. Either you believe or you do not. There isn't any half in and half out. I am not for Islam but Islam would not allow what has just been done in the US. The US has just proven what Iran has suspected and declared for decades. I hear voices saying that what has been done is a victory for freedom, that people are somehow more free, and I wonder how the majority can somehow swallow such nonsense. Did the founding fathers fight for this sort of freedom? Did they liberate a nation to licensiousness?

They did it for the free labor, and the right not to pay taxes to the homeland. And burn a few witches along the way, while running the heathens off their lands. No blood on Christian hands from any examples of history.

They are as flawed as the rest of the humans.

Tal you said they did it to run the heathens off their lands, how come the heathens have been allowed to take over? No one is free of blood Tal, Not christians, Not muslims, Not heathens, this is because no one heeds the instructions there seems to be "a you couldn't mean me" clause

Nope no more melting pot. The government has seen to that.

Nobody on the left calls it a melting pot anymore . I've heard phrases like "quilt " or "mosaic " . In other words ,there is no unique assimilation per se.


My dad was a minister and officiated at innumerable weddings, including his children's. I have, as an adult, been to scads of weddings. The florist and baker deliver their goods before the wedding, then disappear back to their shops. They don't hang around to make sure of anything.

The fact that the cake they bake is being used in the ceremony makes them participants . Suppose a Jewish baker was force to bake for a neo-nazi event . Would he be subject to the same standards that you would impose on a baker who holds deeply held objections to homosexual weddings ?


I will add that I have done many weddings and blessings.

It is at some point, if someone professes to be a Christian, where do they draw line. Most like to talk, and then say we will pray from the safety of their pew on Sunday morning. To me, they are as bad, if perhaps as worst as those who merely go along and do things against their religious teachings.

The idea at least when you read the Bible, there is risks to being a Christian. None of the 12 disciples retired to a rich beach house. Most were tortured or killed for their beliefs. Today in many parts of the world, Christians are put in prison, beaten or killed merely for their beliefs. But they hold on to their beliefs, I doubt if more than 4 or 5 percent of people in America, who "claim" to be Christian, would stand up and declare they are, if they faced torture or death.

There is a simple answer for Christians, all Christian churches, declare that they will no longer obey any law that is against their teachings. They don't worry about tax exemptions, and their members refuse to issue gay marriage license, refuse to have any dealings with gay marriages.

If America really is (and I do not believe it is) it would be simple, the government can not put in jail millions of Christians, it can not take 100's of thousands to court.

And if a few lose their jobs or business, let the churches support and help restore them for doing their Christian duty.

I am in favor of the elimination of the tax exempt status for religious institutions . It compromises the church's independent position and I also think they could be successfully challenged over the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment .


They did it for the free labor, and the right not to pay taxes to the homeland. And burn a few witches along the way, while running the heathens off their lands. No blood on Christian hands from any examples of history.

They are as flawed as the rest of the humans.

What a jaded view you have of your countries history !! Why do you stay in a land you despise so much ?

The fact that the cake they bake is being used in the ceremony makes them participantsNope, wrong.

Why do you stay in a land you despise so much ?Do you not read your own posts? Go back and read your history of posts here at AMHD.

In other words ,there is no unique assimilation per se.

That's the problem isn't it? Nobody wants to be assimilated by you. Live and let live. The country would be better for it. Then you won't have a freak out when your fellow Americans partake of their own dreams. Not serving a customer because of YOUR religious beliefs is a crock of CRAP!

Christianity isn't being assaulted, it's being ignored for truth and reality, and rightfully so considering the actual practice of it, as the institutions have failed its people and began to crumble long before gays decided to live in light, and not the closet.

A true Christian (or Muslim) would welcome others with love, and not beat them into conversion, to be ASSIMILATED! A people are judged by how they treat the least of them, not what they make them do.

How the hell can you serve a GOD when you cannot even serve a fellow human when all he wants is for you to bake him a freakin' cake? Enough of this self righteous hypocrisy. Get real, and realize WHY you are having such a bad week!

Christianity isn't being assaulted, it's being ignored for truth and reality, and rightfully so considering the actual practice of it, as the institutions have failed its people and began to crumble long before gays decided to live in light, and not the closet.

A true Christian (or Muslim) would welcome others with love, and not beat them into conversion, to be ASSIMILATED! A people are judged by how they treat the least of them, not what they make them do.



Tal you may have understanding of the message of Christianity but you have certainly missed the message in Islam. Islam is assimulation, convert or die, our way or the highway and no room for gays there either. Would a muslim bake a cake for a gay wedding? Probably comprised of C4.

What is not realised is christianity is way of life not a religious observance, but the fact is there are rules and they are being broken by people of all persuasions.

You talk about freedon but the baker should be free to serve who he chooses in his shop without someone getting their nose out of joint, his right to free speech and freedom of association is just as strong as anyoneelses. If you walk into a store and they don't have what you want you go someplace else or perhaps not you're the type who would hold a protest and conduct a boycott

Not serving a customer because of YOUR religious beliefs is a crock of CRAP! Nope ;being compelled by the government to violate your religious beliefs is what is a crock . You make it sound like being served by a business is a right . Hate to clue you in but the Civil rights act makes it illegal to refuse service based on race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

Where does it say sexual orientation ? It doesn't . Should it ;probably yes . However if it means having to give your services to a ceremony that you have religious objections to then too bad . Find another baker ,minister ,florist ,caterer , dj to do the job. The only one who loses under that is the person who is refusing the service .
Fr Chuck is right. Churches have to take a stand if they are subject persecution by your tyranny .And believe me ....it is tyranny to force churches to perform religious services against their will. It is tyranny to tell a religious adoption service that they MUST adopt children to homosexual couples . It is tyranny to tell religious institutions that they MUST provide abortion pills to their employees against their religious beliefs .

Congratulations . Your side got what it wants again .... a war against religious rights . Doesn't surprise me . The left proves over and over again it opposed religious liberty ....and most of the rest of the 1st amendment for that matter .

It's but the latest trick to legalize discrimination, promote hate, and marginalize another human. The others were struck down, so to will this one.

Not even ALL Christians are down with that Tom.​

Nope ;being compelled by the government to violate your religious beliefs is what is a crock . You make it sound like being served by a business is a right
Why aren't we all questioned at the door as to our sexual orientation? Who's going to undress me to see if I'm transgender or check my into my sex life to see if I kiss other women? (I've heard that those who scream the loudest are the most insecure.) Or maybe most businesses welcome customers who BUY stuff.

I keep wondering why this is an argument, fact is most of the gay community live among the gay community, it is only when they stray there is conflict

I keep wondering why this is an argument, fact is most of the gay community live among the gay community, it is only when they stray there is conflict
That's not true in the US. They might be your neighbors, eeeeek! I know four same-sex couples who've been together 25 years and longer who own homes in upper-middle class neighborhoods. And two of those couples adopted babies years ago. And guess what -- those babies had terrific childhoods and are straight adults with successful careers.

No they are a bit thin on the ground in some parts of the country and there are areas in our cities well known for their communities but then a lesser percentage of our population appears to have that preference. I don't agree that children should be raised by same sex couples

Why aren't we all questioned at the door as to our sexual orientation? Who's going to undress me to see if I'm transgender or check my into my sex life to see if I kiss other women? (I've heard that those who scream the loudest are the most insecure.) Or maybe most businesses welcome customers who BUY stuff.

Why do you intentionally misrepresent my position. Nowhere do I say that homosexuals should be denied service because they are homosexuals. What I am saying is that a business owner should not be compelled by law to service or participate in ceremony that they have religious objections to. The florist who got in trouble for not providing flowers for a homosexual "wedding " had been selling the same homosexual customer flowers for other reasons for years .

Evidently the 14th Amendment supersedes the 1st ,even though the interpretation of the 14th applied is an expanded invention of progressive courts.

Yes maybe MOST business owners have no objections ... Let them service the "wedding" then .The only monetary loser is the business that doesn't participate

I keep wondering why this is an argument, fact is most of the gay community live among the gay community, it is only when they stray there is conflict

What is happening in some cases (and I suspect will happen more frequently as acceptance of a lifestyle choice is forced upon us) is that businesses that have these objections will be sought out and punished. An Indiana pizzeria was thrust into the national spotlight when it's owners daughter said that IF a homosexual couple wanted pizza at their "wedding " ,they would refuse to make them.



“We service anyone. I don’t care who it is. I don’t care if they’re covered with tattoos, I don’t care if they got rings in their ears. I don’t care if they’re gay. The only thing I said was I cannot condone gay marriage," O'Connor, 61, told The Times. He said he believes his decision not to cater same-sex weddings is simply an expression of his religious beliefs.
"If they want to come in the store, that’s their privilege, they can do that. But I can’t condone gay marriage, that’s against my belief," he added.


The backlash was so severe that they were forced to temporarily shut down. Of course the misleading headlines like "Indiana pizzeria won't serve gays " didn't help .

I expect to see similar attacks around the country . We've seen it in states that already allowed same sex "weddings" . Now we'll see such efforts nationwide.

Indiana is also the place that passed and was signed by Pence the right to discriminate against gays. The business community quickly moved to back that down. A free market solution?

Lets add those states that have gone so far as to not issuing a marriage licence to gay couples where it was ruled unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. You may see this as an attack on religious rights, but I see this as gays and others exercising their own rights to protest, speak out, and seek legal redress.

You may see this as an attack on religious rights, but I see this as gays and others exercising their own rights to protest, speak out, and seek legal redress.

and where does it end ? Discrimination suits against churches that won't provide same sex marriage counselling ? You've already proven that in your view , those who believe in traditional religious beliefs are to be labelled bigots ;to be treated as such in the eyes of the law.
We know at very least ,the tax exempt status of those institutions will come under attack.

You nailed it. I can only add that I feel that way about mosques and synagogues, as well as churches. Is it unrealistic to hold them to a higher standard of good behavior?

For sure their should be boundaries to their power, and authority, over the citizens they serve(?). Or do you think protecting pedophiles and terrorists is a good thing?

good ,your argument has reached absurd. No one was condoning physical harm .
But I get it . Unless you demonize your opposition, the general public will have little appetite for forcing Christians to pay for abortion pills, or forcing Christian bakers or photographers to help celebrate events they find morally offensive.(they wouldn't even dare attempt to compel a Muslim to work their "weddings" ).
Religious freedom laws protects all people (even you) from persecution by those who would force them into doing something they find morally objectionable .

Putting religion above the law is absurd.

Why don't Christian bakers and florists refuse to sell to marrying couples who were previously married and got divorced, and to couples who lived together and fornicated before their scheduled wedding? Even Jesus spoke against them in Mark 10 and in other parts of the Gospels.

Putting religion above the law is absurd.

So you are saying Tal that your constitution which has a clear separation between church and state is absurd, You may as well throw the whole thing away and start again because what you are saying is that the legislature which exists under the constitution can pass laws that supercede the consititution and this is not so. Religion is an involiate freedom and no homosexual should be able to challenge that freedom.

Wondergirl, they might if they could identify these people, the only reason they are objecting to homosexuals and identifying them is the message or some other part of the process is clearly identifying the occasion as homosexual