Supreme Court rules in spite of what the law says

[C-dub]

This mess hurts more people than it helps.

My wife and I and over 100 other people from our company lost our jobs back in January because of cutbacks hospitals and hospital systems are having to do to mitigate their loses. And because of that market it took me 5 months to obtain another job in the dame field, while my wife is still looking. She was higher up than me and there are fewer of those type positions available.

My brother and BIL are both self employed with only one and two employees respectively. Their insurance premiums tripled, while their deductibles also increased 2-3 times. I don't know of one person whose healthcare costs went down.

I do know of one liberal former friend on FB that claimed her family was finally able to afford health insurance. I questioned her about this because her family lives in a neighborhood where the home values $300k and up and they have a membership in the local country club where the two sons play golf at least 3 times a week. And her and her husband both drive cars that cost more tan $50k each. When I asked her how they could afford all this, and not have health insurance she quickly me a few choice names and then unfriended me so I could not respond. A few of her own personal friends started asking the same questions after I did about her claim and that royally peeved her.

This mess hurts more people than it helps.

[KD5NRH]

And because of that market it took me 5 months to obtain another job in the dame field,

OB/GYN?

I do know of one liberal former friend on FB that claimed her family was finally able to afford health insurance. I questioned her about this because her family lives in a neighborhood where the home values $300k and up and they have a membership in the local country club where the two sons play golf at least 3 times a week. And her and her husband both drive cars that cost more tan $50k each.

Yeah, we had some twit show up shilling his Congressional campaign back during the early days of the original Obamacare discussion. Riding a <2 year old Harley, with an address in a nice neighborhood, but complaining about how he couldn't afford health insurance.

[VMI77]

I disagree that striking it down would impact a a "huge" part of the population. I work in emergency departments in Houston. Since the law was enacted I see the same population of patients utilizing the ER as their primary care provider now ,without providing proof of insurance, as before the ACA was passed. What that tells me is that those who abused the system before the ACA will continue to abuse the system because there is no disincentive.

I don't know what the basic demographic is for the Houston ER. Obamacare doesn't subsidize people who aren't here legally (despite what opponents say).

The part of the population that it would impact is 6-7 million people. Apparently that's the number of government subsidized health insurance plans.

I'll throw this out there once more because everyone just seems to be concerned with the number of people receiving subsidies under ACA as the only ones affected by this decision. There are also a HUGE number of other people...primarily self employed and small business groups that have been unable to obtain health insurance at all due to "pre-existing conditions" that they have no control over. The insurance lobby has kept any legislation from passing to change that for 30 + years. Those same people, if they were part of a "large group plan" (50 employees), could not be singled out for exclusion and would pay the same rate as anyone else without that "pre-existing condition". All the politicians....Republicans and Democrats...have had years and years to correct that situation and have done nothing. When the ACA was first being pitched, they still had two years to come up with a viable alternative plan to present and did nothing except complain and then talk about repealing it since then. In the last week, prior to the SCOTUS ruling, all those same politicians kept spouting off about how they will repeal it and replace it with a good plan that fixes all the problems with the ACA. IF they have such a plan and can do so, why didn't they present it before and why don't they present it now ? If they really do have a plan...GREAT... then lets see it, instead of just continuing to make the same empty promises and rhetoric. I had a discussion with a good friend after golf today who had been disparaging the SCOTUS all morning about both rulings made last week. He was ranting about them forcing churches to marry gays, and making all of "us" pay for insurance for deadbeats. I let it slide until we were out in the parking lot loading up then told him I was going to pick on him a little bit. I explained that the decision only said that all states have to recognize that same sex couples have the right to a legal civil union and the tax break and other benefits that go with it...that they pay the same taxes as he and I and should get the same benefits from them, and that there's a difference between that and a religious ceremony. I talked to him about the problems faced by self employed and small business owners and he said "well the state government should fix that", and I agreed and pointed out that it's been that way for 30 years and they refused to buck the insurance lobby. Then I asked him what dollar amount of insurance subsidy did he receive from the state as a teacher...a subsidy that myself and all the other taxpayers and business owners were paying for? He just stared at me and finally said "what do you mean?" I told him that he and every other teacher in the state of Texas receives a MINIMUM subsidy of $225 per month and that most districts add to that amount based on years of service, and given that he had been a science teacher for over 30 years please correct me if you and your wife (a retired teacher) are not receiving at least $500 credit on your monthly health insurance premium. He started to argue that it wasn't the same then stopped and shook his head and laughed and said "I get your point and thanks for not bringing it up in front of the group".

I'm not sure I get your point. Taxpayers pay his entire salary, so I don't understand the distinction you're making between one category of tax expenditure and another? What difference does it make if you call a part of that salary or employment cost an insurance subsidy? Also, someone providing a service for the tax dollars he's receiving isn't in the same category as the "dead beats" your friend was complaining about. OTOH, someone who is paid with tax dollars isn't a "taxpayer." Government employees get upset when someone says they don't pay taxes, but they don't. True, those working for state and local governments have to pay the Feds, but the money they're paying with still comes from tax dollars, so all it amounts to is bookkeeping.

[cb1000rider]

This mess hurts more people than it helps.
My wife and I and over 100 other people from our company lost our jobs back in January because of cutbacks hospitals and hospital systems are having to do to mitigate their loses. And because of that market it took me 5 months to obtain another job in the dame field, while my wife is still looking. She was higher up than me and there are fewer of those type positions available.

I'm sorry to hear about your employment situation. 5 months is a long time with no income.

Can you explain a bit more how the ACA was the problem? What cutbacks did hospitals and hospital systems have that were triggered by the ACA? My understanding was that the ACA resulted in "more" insured - even if it's just slight. I don't understand how more insured results in additional losses for hospitals, so I'm missing something.

[talltex]

I'm not sure I get your point. Taxpayers pay his entire salary, so I don't understand the distinction you're making between one category of tax expenditure and another? What difference does it make if you call a part of that salary or employment cost an insurance subsidy? Also, someone providing a service for the tax dollars he's receiving isn't in the same category as the "dead beats" your friend was complaining about. OTOH, someone who is paid with tax dollars isn't a "taxpayer." Government employees get upset when someone says they don't pay taxes, but they don't. True, those working for state and local governments have to pay the Feds, but the money they're paying with still comes from tax dollars, so all it amounts to is bookkeeping.

Your comments are well taken....it really doesn't make any difference whether you call it salary or subsidy...the net result is the same in this case. However, just for illustration, assume his wife wasn't also a teacher, but worked for a large corporation with an outstanding benefits package which allowed him to go on her health insurance with a lower deductible and better coverage for the same money. In that case the state and school district would not add that insurance subsidy amount to his set salary...that money is only in play if he participates in the Texas State Teachers Association plan.

[mojo84]

Here we go. Didn't take long and where does it endend if it is only about "love" and "equality"?

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/July ... -:PF:-IM1-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Montana man has now applied for a marriage license to legally marry a second wife.

Nathan Collier says he was inspired by last week's Supreme Court ruling.

[Tracker]

this could be next: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nship.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An 18-year-old girl is revealing in a new interview that she has been dating her father for two years
The pair were estranged for 12 years, but met up again when she was 16, having sex the week they were reunited, which was her first time
They were soon dating and are now planning their wedding
After their wedding they plan on moving to New Jersey and having children, were adult incest is legal

[C-dub]

And because of that market it took me 5 months to obtain another job in the dame field,

OB/GYN?

No, but it seems that way some days. I meant "same", but I think you knew that. I am a Medical Technologist.

[mojo84]

Mark Levin from 5 years ago. We are seeing it come true.

[video][/video]

[Tracker]

Is This Where Libertarians and the Gay Community Part Ways?
With little government-sponsored discrimination permitted in the United States any longer, what’s left that both groups agree upon?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/01/is-th ... -the-gay-c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"But just because libertarians and gay citizens were aligned in the pursuit of ending government mistreatment, that doesn't mean other goals line up. Libertarians draw that bright, hard line between government behavior and private behavior. Others often do not, and what many gay activists see as justice and equality in the private sector, libertarians see as inappropriate government coercion."

Religious Freedom Exemptions. Even more than anti-discrimination employment laws, there is a significant philosophical divide between libertarians and many gay activists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and state-level civil rights commissions over the responses to religious business owners not wanting to provide their goods and services for gay weddings. We're now seeing additional suggestions that religious colleges could be punished for not accommodating gay couples, and even an early suggestion that churches should not have non-profit status any longer.

The freedom to choose with whom to associate is a fundamental human and Constitutionally protected right. The ability to engage freely in commerce another one. Anybody with any doubts about the importance of free commerce to human liberty is encouraged to ask a nearby Venezuelan about the alternatives. As such, libertarians have consistently been supporting the rights of religious businesses and individuals to say "No thanks" to potential customers.

To be clear, though: This position is not entirely about religion. That happens to be the framework for this debate because the people who want to discriminate against gay customers are doing so for religious reasons. The practice of religion, also a fundamental right, is deeply tied into how some people express with whom they associate and what business practices they endorse. As long as these individuals do not violate the rights of others, they should be free to do so.

A wedding cake is not a right. A wedding photographer is not a right. Everybody has the right to engage in commerce. We have the right to buy and sell our services and goods, but it must be voluntary on both ends of the exchange. Nobody has the right to force the baker, the photographer, or anybody else to work for them in a free country. The exchange of money doesn't make it acceptable.

When defending accommodation laws used to force religious people's hands, the response tends to be something along the lines of "A business is not a church. If religious folks want to run a business, they can't use their beliefs to ignore the law. Those who choose to run a business have to follow all the government regulations."

This argument flips the idea of civil liberties completely on its head and attributes the source of our rights to the government, a contradiction of the spirit of our own Constitution. If somebody said "If people choose to speak out they have to follow all the government regulations," most people would immediately wonder: "What sort of regulations are we talking about? We have freedom of speech. The government can't just pass any regulations they want to control what people say."

The same should hold true for people's right to engage in commerce. Any law or regulation that inhibits the right of individuals to choose with whom to associate needs to immediately be treated as suspect. In order to justify restrictions or mandates on this freedom, the government should be required to prove that a significant amount of harm is the result of inaction.

That's obviously not the case here. Nobody has presented a credible argument that gay couples have been completely unable to buy wedding cakes or rent photographers. There is no actual "harm"—just inconvenience.

Adoption. Earlier in June, Florida officially ended its ban on gay parents adopting children. It was mostly a symbolic gesture...But there is another side, and it ties back into the treatment of religious people. Some adoption agencies are tied to religious groups who do not want to serve same-sex couples or place children in same-sex homes. They are also typically recipients of state funding for placing children, and are therefore subject to state regulation. Should they be required to serve gay couples?

Some states, such as Illinois, attempted to force them. As a result, Catholic Charities, which helped the state find adoptive and foster home services for four decades, stopped providing their services in 2011. At the time, a gay activist declared this a victory, saying "Finding a loving home for the thousands in the foster/adoption system should be the priority, not trying to exclude people based on religious dogma."

But this statement is a huge misreading of how the adoption process works, and the agency's closure probably ended up making it harder for some kids to find homes. For some insight, we turned to Walter Olson, a senior fellow from the Cato Institute and a contributing editor to Reason. He's also gay and the parent of an adopted child.

In Olson's experience, the more agencies out there serving the needs of the children looking for homes, the better.

[Tracker]

Taking Marriage Private
By STEPHANIE COONTZ
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opini ... ref=slogin&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rep. Matt Rinaldi
http://mattrinaldi.com/marriage-must-be-protected-now/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am more dedicated than ever to defending marriage and protecting the religious liberty of all Texans. That is why I asked Governor Abbott to call a special session and address this issue. - See more at: http://mattrinaldi.com/marriage-must-be ... 1NHOr.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[talltex]

Rep. Matt Rinaldi
http://mattrinaldi.com/marriage-must-be-protected-now/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am more dedicated than ever to defending marriage and protecting the religious liberty of all Texans. That is why I asked Governor Abbott to call a special session and address this issue. - See more at: http://mattrinaldi.com/marriage-must-be ... 1NHOr.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That letter from Rinaldi is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen a politician come up with. He proposes to address his disapproval of same sex marriage by removing it as a legal status and passing a law that ONLY religious leaders can perform a marriage ceremony. Talk about an ambiguous proposal...What religious leaders? Is it only Protestant Christian Pastors/Preachers? What about Catholics Priests? Rabbis? Non Christian Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic etc...? In this country, the Judiciary has ALWAYS had the right to perform marriage ceremonies/civil unions. All the ranting about the SCOTUS rewriting the Constitution, ignores the fact that interpreting the Constitution when a legal issue is brought before the Court is exactly what they are charged with doing under our system of government. This particular issue, was granted a hearing because it has elements addressed in both the Third and Fourteenth Amendments. The Third (Freedom of Religion) not only establishes Freedom OF Religion but also Freedom FROM Religion...The Government cannot tell you what religion you may practice, nor can it require you to practice any religion at all. The Fourteenth states that all citizens of the US are entitled to the same rights and privileges...(the Equal Protection Clause), and that no State may pass a law which allows a particular class of individuals to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. When you combine the two, the idea of any state passing a law to say that people can only be married by religious leaders is ludicrous. There is a difference between the religious ceremony and the legal benefits accorded a recognized civil union. The SCOTUS decision doesnt deal with religious ceremony...just the legal status of a civil union.

[Tracker]

Probably 15 years ago we had a girl working for us who had a gay wedding ceremony. It was a small very conservative company, not even 10 people in the office. Nobody really talked about it. She made a bigger about it. Everybody else was like ok

In reading the courts ruling and some of the historical arguments, such as finding interracial marriage bans unconstitutional, it follows they'd find bans on gay marriage unconstitutional as well.

the original reason state issued marriage licensing came about was to police who could marry whom. Do we really still need the government validating marriage? Texas isn't the only state talking about doing away with marriage licensing. The girl who worked for us, and her partner, could have their marriage registered.

The bigger issue relates to laws undermining religious liberties. Where the states onced used licensing to deny marriage liberties now we're seeing gay couples using (IMO unjust) laws to punish someone else exercising their religious liberties.

A cake is not a right.

Is This Where Libertarians and the Gay Community Part Ways?
With little government-sponsored discrimination permitted in the United States any longer, what’s left that both groups agree upon?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/01/is-th ... -the-gay-c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;