Supreme Court Allows Employers to Discriminate Against Employees by Denying Contraception Coverage

[ibx 2]

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?

[airdvr 197]

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

[kallend 1,623]

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.

[rushmc 18]

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

[rushmc 18]

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

Quote

Court 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

[devildog 0]

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.

[kallend 1,623]

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.

[rushmc 18]

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

[champu 1]

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

[rushmc 18]

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

[champu 1]

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.

[rhaig 0]

My only problem with this decision is the slippery slope it's set up for corporations being granted constitutional rights of citizens.

--
Rob

[rushmc 18]

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.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

This is interesting

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2014/06/30/three-biggest-lies-liberals-spread-about-hobby-lobby-ruling

Quote

Lie #1: Men are taking away women’s rights ... again!

Quote

Lie #2: Conservatives are prudes who want to take away access to all contraception, which is a healthcare issue for many women.

Quote

Lie #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

[Amazon 7]

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.

[rushmc 18]

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.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

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.

[Southern_Man 0]

rhaig

My 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?"

[rushmc 18]

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

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

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

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

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

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

No, 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

[wmw999 2,122]

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)

[Southern_Man 0]

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?"

[rushmc 18]

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