ibx 2 #1 July 1, 2014 https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/supreme-court-allows-employers-discriminate-against-employees-denying To me, an employer being privy too how you use your health care package is as intrusive as them being privy to how you spend your income. If they can say they don't want their compensation package (health care) to be used on contraception why can't they say they don't want their compensation package (cash) to be used on contraception either? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #2 July 1, 2014 It's simple. The government isn't telling them who to hire and how much to pay them (for the most part).Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,641 #3 July 1, 2014 I like Alito's suggestion: When a corporation-person has an unfounded and incorrect belief that gets them off the hook for paying for an employee benefit, then TAXPAYERS can pick up the tab. Nice one, Sam. Let middle class taxpayers bail out the billionaires.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #4 July 1, 2014 FIFY"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #5 July 1, 2014 More good news http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/30/Citing-SCOTUS-Hobby-Lobby-Decision-Federal-Appeals-Court-Grants-EWTN-Reprieve-From-HHS-Mandate QuoteCourt Grants Catholic TV Network Reprieve From Birth Control Mandate, Citing Hobby Lobby Decision"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #6 July 1, 2014 Iago*** I like Alito's suggestion: When a corporation-person has an unfounded and incorrect belief that gets them off the hook for paying for an employee benefit, then TAXPAYERS can pick up the tab. Nice one, Sam. Let middle class taxpayers bail out the billionaires. The game changed when the government MANDATED that employers provide health coverage. It is no longer a benefit. Yep. And HL apparently pays for 16 out of 20 BC options. Plenty of choices for someone that's actually *gasp* responsible.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,641 #7 July 1, 2014 devildog****** I like Alito's suggestion: When a corporation-person has an unfounded and incorrect belief that gets them off the hook for paying for an employee benefit, then TAXPAYERS can pick up the tab. Nice one, Sam. Let middle class taxpayers bail out the billionaires. The game changed when the government MANDATED that employers provide health coverage. It is no longer a benefit. Yep. And HL apparently pays for 16 out of 20 BC options. Plenty of choices for someone that's actually *gasp* responsible. BUT (Big BUT) the court decision wasn't limited to the 4 that HL mistakenly believes are abortifacients. Apparently it is OK to deny benefits to employees now based on beliefs that are known to be untrue.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #8 July 1, 2014 kallend********* I like Alito's suggestion: When a corporation-person has an unfounded and incorrect belief that gets them off the hook for paying for an employee benefit, then TAXPAYERS can pick up the tab. Nice one, Sam. Let middle class taxpayers bail out the billionaires. The game changed when the government MANDATED that employers provide health coverage. It is no longer a benefit. Yep. And HL apparently pays for 16 out of 20 BC options. Plenty of choices for someone that's actually *gasp* responsible. BUT (Big BUT) the court decision wasn't limited to the 4 that HL mistakenly believes are abortifacients. Apparently it is OK to deny benefits to employees now based on beliefs that are known to be untrue. As pointed out earlier, this is no longer a benefit It is a mandate But at least the court ruling follows one of the main tenants of the Constitution. That being religious freedom But then, you and yours only like certain parts of the Constitution And as far as I am concerned, all 20 should have been included"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #9 July 1, 2014 rushmcBut at least the court ruling follows one of the main tenants of the Constitution. That being religious freedom Religious freedom has serious "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose" issues. Religious freedoms don't grant you the right to live in a world devoid of abortions, certain contraceptives, blood transfusions, and homosexuals. Your argument is "fine, but don't make me pay for it" which sounds nice, but at some point that becomes your interstate commerce clause to force your religion on others. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4571041;#4571041 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #10 July 1, 2014 champu***But at least the court ruling follows one of the main tenants of the Constitution. That being religious freedom Religious freedom has serious "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose" issues. Religious freedoms don't grant you the right to live in a world devoid of abortions, certain contraceptives, blood transfusions, and homosexuals. Your argument is "fine, but don't make me pay for it" which sounds nice, but at some point that becomes your interstate commerce clause to force your religion on others. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4571041;#4571041 None of which are at the core of the Right to religious freedoms as spelled out by out Constititution"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #11 July 1, 2014 rushmc******But at least the court ruling follows one of the main tenants of the Constitution. That being religious freedom Religious freedom has serious "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose" issues. Religious freedoms don't grant you the right to live in a world devoid of abortions, certain contraceptives, blood transfusions, and homosexuals. Your argument is "fine, but don't make me pay for it" which sounds nice, but at some point that becomes your interstate commerce clause to force your religion on others. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4571041;#4571041 None of which are at the core of the Right to religious freedoms as spelled out by out Constititution You're correct. People generally don't argue for abortions, certain contraceptives, blood transfusions, and gay marriage on the grounds that they want to be free to practice their religion. That's just "their nose." A company looking over their employee's shoulder and jumping between their doctor and the insurance company because dollars might go from them to the morning after pill along that specific path is "swinging a fist." Adding language to state constitutions with the express purpose of prohibiting gay marriage is "swinging a fist." Passing legislation with the intention and effect of shutting down planned parenthood clinics is "swinging a fist." This "money represents my religious beliefs" argument is an argument that the dollars emanating from your pocket create a radius around you where you can swing your fists even if other people's noses happen to be there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #12 July 1, 2014 My only problem with this decision is the slippery slope it's set up for corporations being granted constitutional rights of citizens.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #13 July 1, 2014 Here is something interesting This case was decided on a law that Bill Clinton signed QuoteAccording to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well.! According to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #14 July 1, 2014 This is interesting http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2014/06/30/three-biggest-lies-liberals-spread-about-hobby-lobby-ruling QuoteLie #1: Men are taking away women’s rights ... again! QuoteLie #2: Conservatives are prudes who want to take away access to all contraception, which is a healthcare issue for many women. QuoteLie #3: Now any employer can claim religious objections to healthcare provisions in their plans"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #15 July 1, 2014 rushmcHere is something interesting This case was decided on a law that Bill Clinton signed QuoteAccording to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well.! According to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well. It never ceases to amaze me about how the "small government" conservatives, are always making sure they are climbing into the bedrooms and personal lives of Americans based on fundamentalist religious law. And people wonder why I refer to them as the American Taliban.... there really is no difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #16 July 1, 2014 Amazon***Here is something interesting This case was decided on a law that Bill Clinton signed QuoteAccording to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well.! According to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well. It never ceases to amaze me about how the "small government" conservatives, are always making sure they are climbing into the bedrooms and personal lives of Americans based on fundamentalist religious law. And people wonder why I refer to them as the American Taliban.... there really is no difference. Actually it is you and yours doing what you decry Go firgue....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 July 1, 2014 rushmc ******Here is something interesting This case was decided on a law that Bill Clinton signed Quote According to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well.! According to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well. It never ceases to amaze me about how the "small government" conservatives, are always making sure they are climbing into the bedrooms and personal lives of Americans based on fundamentalist religious law. And people wonder why I refer to them as the American Taliban.... there really is no difference. Actually it is you and yours doing what you decry Go firgue..... But here you are supporting fundamentalist fascism in the name of "Murica. Do you realize just how screwy that is?? It is setting precedent.. another step to codifying religious fundamentalism and forcing your fellow Americans to believe as you do... Church as STATE has proven itself to be a plague on humanity. The Founding Fathers knew this and I guess we will have to learn that lesson all over again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #18 July 1, 2014 rhaigMy only problem with this decision is the slippery slope it's set up for corporations being granted constitutional rights of citizens. We are slipping down that slope rapidly. I do not see in the opinions (though I've only read summaries and not the complete ones) that there is any sort of logical demarcation."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #19 July 1, 2014 Amazon *********Here is something interesting This case was decided on a law that Bill Clinton signed Quote According to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well.! According to the court, the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations. Alito wrote that opinion, as well. It never ceases to amaze me about how the "small government" conservatives, are always making sure they are climbing into the bedrooms and personal lives of Americans based on fundamentalist religious law. And people wonder why I refer to them as the American Taliban.... there really is no difference. Actually it is you and yours doing what you decry Go firgue..... But here you are supporting fundamentalist fascism in the name of "Murica. Do you realize just how screwy that is?? It is setting precedent.. another step to codifying religious fundamentalism and forcing your fellow Americans to believe as you do... Church as STATE has proven itself to be a plague on humanity. The Founding Fathers knew this and I guess we will have to learn that lesson all over again.You did not follow this did you this ruling was not about Obamacare It upheld a law signed by Bill Clinton go bitch at him"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #20 July 1, 2014 QuoteYou did not follow this did you this ruling was not about Obamacare It upheld a law signed by Bill Clinton go bitch at him Actually, it extended a law signed by Bill Clinton. The original law applied only to religious non-profits. This activist ruling (remember, you hate judicial activism) extends the law to include closely held, for profit companies. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #21 July 1, 2014 DanGQuoteYou did not follow this did you this ruling was not about Obamacare It upheld a law signed by Bill Clinton go bitch at him Actually, it extended a law signed by Bill Clinton. The original law applied only to religious non-profits. This activist ruling (remember, you hate judicial activism) extends the law to include closely held, for profit companies. No, it about treating all the same"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #22 July 1, 2014 QuoteNo, it about treating all the same The only people being treated the same here are religious non-profits and closely held for profits. I suspect publicly traded companies will be next, since corporations now have the right to religious freedom. Eventually, they'll get the right to vote, too. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,144 #23 July 1, 2014 Is the "all" you refer to: citizens, employees, business owners, stockholders, or something else? Because many laws pick out specific groups. The ones about the HC mandate not applying to companies with fewer than 50 employees; similar ones about handicap accessibility not applying in some cases, etc. As a stockholder, should I get to vote on a company's health plan? How about their decision to buy Saudi oil, or advertise on Fox or CNN? Am I included in "all"? It's easy to look at a short term result. It's harder, but necessary, to extrapolate what might happen when an unreasonable asshole with a good lawyer decides to go to town. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #24 July 1, 2014 wmw999 It's harder, but necessary, to extrapolate what might happen when an unreasonable asshole with a good lawyer decides to go to town. Wendy P. Andy's ears just perked up..."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #25 July 1, 2014 Wendy HC is not a right Before the ACA it was empoyer provided benefit It is still not a right The birth control debate starts from a false premise from two areas First, it is still avialable isnt it? So it is not being taken away Second, this is about WHO is forced to pay for it now!!!! And you are ok with the Gov taking that role I am not"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites