One of the tweets!



Molly Redden @mtredden
Follow
Read Ruth Bader Ginsburg's response to the Hobby Lobby ruling: http://bit.ly/1lJHCHD
2:30 PM - 30 Jun 2014

http://www.advocate.com/comedy/2014/06/30/18-tweets-point-out-absurdity-hobby-lobby-ruling

Thank you William and to the advocate!

DU'er Loonix.

DU'ers are everywhere that good ideas show up.

Whine.

so she'd be treated like a person.

The Supreme Court narrowly ruled that a privately held corporation can refuse to pay for something that, based on religious beliefs, it doesn't want to cover. Is this correct? If so, does that mean a privately held corporation can opt out of paying taxes that go toward war? In other words, let's just say for sake of argument, refuse to pay 10% of its federal income taxes because approximately 10% goes toward killing other people. Like a conscientious objector removal, based on religious beliefs. Thou shalt not kill. These are rhetorical questions, obviously, but I'm trying to understand what the Court ruled today, and to sharpen my argument against it. It just seems on its face completely absurd. Can anyone please help me understand what the Court ruled today, and explain whether my argument holds any validity? These tweets are great too. But I'd like to also win an argument, perhaps in my own mind and perhaps if I ever discuss it with anyone who might not mind today's ruling.

it gyrated to carve an exemption (providing insurance coverage, or maybe paying taxes) for privately held corporations. An exemption that make no sense (given that we're also supposed to follow the rule of law) and allows or even encourages privately held corporations to discriminate against women.

Five men went there, they boldly tread where they have no right to be.

This is so very wrong.