Discussion for article #224579
Corporations were not people when President Clinton signed this bill. Nobody in their right mind would ever say corporations is a human being except this SCOTUS minus 4 liberals.
The law was intended to restore dignity to Native Americans whose religious freedoms had been relegated to second class status by the dominant “christian” culture, you orange tinted asshole.
There’s nothing The Boner Gang can’t pervert.
He has time to troll tweet but not to get immigration reform done.
Bravo.
As usual Boner proves he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Bill as the republican’ts best friend. Who’da thunk.
Not you, apparently.
Outreach my ass.
Corporations are not people, and cannot have religious convictions. And the legal fiction that it is otherwise that SCOTUS conservatives keep pushing is going to result in both the left and the right coming together to amend the Constitution, to make explicit what should be a matter of common sense.
But, of course, one could simply pass legislation that states that RFRA does not apply to for-profit corporations.
Buck Foehner
Sad thing is he’s pretty much right. Clinton and the Dems caved big time in '93 there’s no denying it, realpolitk or no.
It would make more sense for Boehner to thank the Senators that confirmed the Supreme Gang of Five. It’s not like they even seem to be following the law anyway.
Clinton’s reply; Orange is the new Stupid.
Oh I see… this “thank you” is to remind democrats that the Clintons are not their friends.
In this day and age trolling makes up most of the conservative movement.
I think you’re confused about how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act came to be. Either that or you’re confused about the meaning of the word “caved.”
THEN WHY WAS THE BILL NOT WRITTEN THAT WAY? You have to assume some idiot lawyer will find a judge to pull something out of their a$$ to fit whatever axe they have to grind.
Bottom line is the Five Guys would have made the same ruling without RFRA. They had the conclusion and it was just a matter of how to “rationalize” it.