Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

lovemydog

(11,833 posts)
14. Here's what I don't understand.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:34 PM
Jun 2014

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

We have a winner shenmue Jun 2014 #1
kick Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #2
Women~ Meh... sheshe2 Jun 2014 #3
I absolutely love that one! William769 Jun 2014 #4
I believe that it originates with boingboing, a website handled in part by truedelphi Jun 2014 #5
Thanks for the info. William769 Jun 2014 #6
Everyone, click on the links. These tweets are great. n/t spooky3 Jun 2014 #7
Done. William769 Jun 2014 #8
Excellent William.. thank you! And, Obama's workin' on it.. Cha Jun 2014 #9
Good! William769 Jun 2014 #12
Both parties are not the same.. I don't care how much the whiners Cha Jun 2014 #13
Another ... Scuba Jun 2014 #10
I liked the one where the little girl wanted to grow up to be a corporation, tclambert Jun 2014 #11
Here's what I don't understand. lovemydog Jun 2014 #14
SCOTUS really stepped into it this time. William769 Jun 2014 #15
True. It seems to me like lovemydog Jun 2014 #16
Exactly. William769 Jun 2014 #18
Yes they stepped in it Willaim sheshe2 Jun 2014 #19
No, read the decision, expecially the part about 'compelling government interest'. PoliticAverse Jul 2014 #20
Another Tweet Submariner Jun 2014 #17
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Tweets That Point Out the...»Reply #14