and out of respect for their deeply held beliefs, we allow native americans to legally drop peyote, therefore we should a la coke industries to legally drop acid in our rivers. now remember, remember, folks, the purpose of religion is to answer the ultimate question, are we in control or is there some

and out of respect for their deeply held beliefs, we allow native americans to legally drop peyote, therefore we should a la coke industries to legally drop acid in our rivers. now remember, remember, folks, the purpose of religion is to answer the ultimate question, are we in control or is there some greater force pulling the strings. and if the courts rule that corporations have the same religious rights that we humans do, i think we'll have our answer. and that's the word. we'll be right back. (cheers and applause) >> stephen: welcome back, everybody, thank you very much. folks, if you watched this, and i hope you do, you must know that it would not be possible without the all-star team of patriots over fox news. they're like the harlem globe trot ters of people without do not trot the harlem. as all things to news corporate founder and world's most powerful raisin rupert murr dochblingt that is why i'm personally so enraged about the paudry hit job murdoch world written by journalistic hack david fallenflick who is my guest tonight. thank you for joining, sir, it's an honor. to you listen

ctv news on the weekend thanks to a chinese securities red lights and some peyote that country for the initial offering system it's seen as a major step toward a market already and its ipo registration system according to the new rules the security threat the tree commission will pay more attention to the elite in the policy and economics even use as a mocking johnston risk and that too. in the press conference a spokesperson for the second a tatted report says that in euros in the immortal by the cast and a system to make it stable but said it still needs some time before being fully implement it. he estimates it to more than fifty companies with the senior shacks by the end of january next year that the new rulers. china began its mission to land on the moon on monday that on the street in a prep will be dumped at one thirty am local time from ceduna. i cannot stand. too sensitive to gluten. bookies system has functioned upon thinking oh four general inspections everything matches. i think it was only two requirements also look the way that has been feeding according to tom tomorrow

that oregon, in this case, could deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition. the drug being illegal in the state. these are scalia's word from the opinion. scalia wrote to permit this would make professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land and in effect to permit every citizen -- to become a law unto himself. it will be interesting, will it not, julian to see, how scalia manages that past quote of his? >> scalia had interesting company in that case. and there, the idea was that you can't simply use a -- a professed religious belief to get, exempt yourself from laws. so i think -- conservatives will find themselves in an interesting position. congress passed a law. religious freedom restoration act. and the question now is, not only -- the question is not only whether any of these provisions, protections apply to a corporation to begin with. but whether the statute that was passed, in 1993 would apply to a corporation. i think the answer to that is probably going to be no. because -- for a variety of

the supreme court about whether the indian group in oregon can smoke peyote as part of a religious celebration. fundamentally that is pretty well anchored in american public opinion and constitutional law. host: this is from laura who says -- guest: there is a serious argument to be made along that line. i have not read the full text of the obamacare, the affordable care act. i have not read the full text of the senate law. it does not make for very easy reading. because they say things like notwithstanding clause four b seven and you have to work your way through to figure out what the legislation is actually saying by making reference to other texts and court decisions. the argument for comprehensive bills is that x group want some provisions and why group wants others. you can still pass them separately. the compromise of 1850 was managed in the senate by stephen a douglas. douglas split into different bills. he had majority plus one of the senators voting for one bill and a different majority voting for another petition. he got it through. he went to a bar and had quite a few drinks after

the supreme court about whether the indian group in oregon can smoke peyote as part of a religious celebration. fundamentally that is pretty anchored in american public opinion and constitutional law. host: this is from laura who says there is a serious argument to remain along that line. ofave not read the full text the obamacare, the affordable care act. i have not read the full text of the senate law. it does not make for very easy reading. likese they say things notwithstanding clause four b seven and you have to work your way through to figure out what the legislation is actually saying by making reference to other texts and court decisions. the argument for comprehensive x group want some provisions and why group wants others. you can still pass them separately. the compromise of 1850 was managed in the senate by stephen a douglas. douglas split into different bills. one of therity plus senators voting for one bill and a different majority voting for another petition. he got it through. had quite a bar and few drinks after they got all these different measures through. you know all this?

scalia wrote an opinion back in 1990 a case about two native american employees fired for smoking pei peyote're talking about antonin scalia and the key vote here is anthony kennedy and we owtually really don't know h he will rule on this. he's actually very conservative on reproductive rights. i think susan is right about this doesn't need to be a question on a job interview, are you on birth control, that's not something that women should have to discuss with their bosses and even men, is your wife on birth control. i mean, all of this leads to a very slippery slope in terms of privacy rights. >> for republicans here, susan, this is not the conversation they necessarily want to have. it was brought to a very difficult place, according to the polls, for republicans, six, seven out of ten saying they got it wrong because they were talking about religious freedom instead of women's rights to health care. >> depending on how this goes, it's going to be very problematic for republicans especially looking towards 2016. women do not want to be told by their government what to this do with their b