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

[quade 3]

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/rick-warren-net-worth/

So . . . you're saying he didn't make that money by conning people into giving it to do "God's work"? The invisible man in the sky?

If he was selling any other product he'd be tossed in jail for fraud.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Coreece 190]

Now you're assuming that I don't think Rick is a con...

I've heard the arguments against him even within the evangelical church...I must admit, he's very slick - a master of his craft. Many poor souls (lonely women) are captivated by him with their inability to grasp his subtlety.

The main division within the evangelical church is those that have a God-centered theology and those who have a man-centered theology.

Man-centered theology revolves around the prosperity gospel...everything is good. God wants you to hit more home runs and score more touch downs. God wants you to get that brand new Lexus, all you have to do is name and claim it...

These types of churches bring in more people and more money because they tell people what they want to hear.

God centered theology will not support human covetousness as does the prosperity gospel. It will deal with the darker side of life. They will help you to recognize sin in your life and promote change. It will get you out of a bad situation in life when the warm fuzzy feelings of the prosperity gospel fade away...

Edit:
I just have to add that I'm still not sure if Rick is really a con or just a sincere misguided pragmatist...he's that good!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

btw, I just finally looked at your link...lame.

It proves you can't provided substance to your claims as I can.

Your religious background (which amounts to complete ignorance) is what Einstein was referring to when he talked about the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.

Get over it...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[quade 3]

Coreece, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. None.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Coreece 190]

quade

Coreece, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. None.

Then I guess you're just one of those people that doesn't have to explain themselves to anyone, yet feels the the need to talk all kinds of shit on an internet forum without providing any substance whatsoever that proves you actually know what they're talking about...got it.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[quade 3]

Quote

...without providing any substance whatsoever...

Like virtually every religious leader who has ever spoken about "god" and especially those particular conmen who have claimed to have spoken or seen "him"?

Pfft.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Coreece 190]

Your deflection only puts the icing on the cake of your proven ignorance with regard to the subject...

You just want to argue against faith....doesn't even matter if you agree with me...figured as much.

You'd be more effective in your atheistic evangelism if you actually knew what you were talking about.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jgoose71 0]

champu

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.

I kind of like this quote. It's missing something though.

When the money is in my hands, I can spend it the way I want. When the money is in your hands, you can spend it the way you want.

When the money is im my hands, you can't tell me how to spend it. When the money is in your hands, I can't tell you how to spend it.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

And everyone's favorite politician just got caught telling a whopper:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/11/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-supreme-court-five-guys-who-star/

I personally like the SC's decision. No one seems to be getting the flip side of the argument.

Just because I start a business doesn't mean I loose my rights as a person. The prevailing liberal argument seems to be that bosses are not people. I beg to differ. Women and minorities also start businesses, is the government going to come in and tell them how to spend their money also?

Also, there is the claim that all of the sudden all of these benefits are going to be lost now that this has passed. If anything this is going to save benefits and here is why:

Employers were able to choose what their health plans covered in the past. With this ruling, they can now keep those plans. I highly doubt that now that this ruling has passed they are now going to start axing things out as the left claims. Remember they chose these plans when the market was open (well, more open).

Now that they get to keep their plans the same, if they like their plan they can keep it. They are not forced into an Obamacare plan because the plan went away do to a minor change.

But if they absolutely have to have the $35 morning after pill and it has to be covered by insurance, they can always go to healthcare.gov.

Edited to add: you will appreciate this when the employer mandate kicks in.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[champu 1]

jgoose71

I kind of like this quote. It's missing something though.

When the money is in my hands, I can spend it the way I want. When the money is in your hands, you can spend it the way you want.

When the money is im my hands, you can't tell me how to spend it. When the money is in your hands, I can't tell you how to spend it.

I agree with this, but would also add, while the money is in your hands, you can't stamp "...except for any debts incurred due to things I find offensive to my religion" below where it reads, "legal tender for all debts public or private" prior to giving it to me.

By putting the legal tender phrase on money "the government is mandating you pay for all your employees most religiously offensive acts, when what the money is good for should be between you and your employees."

[jgoose71 0]

champu

***I kind of like this quote. It's missing something though.

When the money is in my hands, I can spend it the way I want. When the money is in your hands, you can spend it the way you want.

When the money is im my hands, you can't tell me how to spend it. When the money is in your hands, I can't tell you how to spend it.

I agree with this, but would also add, while the money is in your hands, you can't stamp "...except for any debts incurred due to things I find offensive to my religion" below where it reads, "legal tender for all debts public or private" prior to giving it to me.

By putting the legal tender phrase on money "the government is mandating you pay for all your employees most religiously offensive acts, when what the money is good for should be between you and your employees."

Your logic is dizzying me, I'm not quite sure what you are saying.

It almost sounds like "If you are an employer, you have to pay for what your employee wants."

And you are justifying it by saying the current rules are "The employee still has to spend the his paycheck in a fashion that the employer dictates."

Which is kind of the opposite of what I said, and the court ruled.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[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.

That is the goal of both sides John
BTW

The Dems have mover of them in congress than the R's

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Just because I start a business doesn't mean I loose my rights as a person.

Correct. But companies do not have the same rights as people do in their private lives.

If you are the president of Exxon you can decide, as a homeowner, that no black people can come to your house for dinner. You cannot decide, as an employer, that no black people can work for you.

>The prevailing liberal argument seems to be that bosses are not people.

Bosses are people. COMPANIES are not people.

>Women and minorities also start businesses, is the government going to come in
>and tell them how to spend their money also?

Definitely not. Whether you are a black lesbian Wiccan woman running a patchouli business, or a white Protestant old guy running Exxon, you can spend your OWN money however you like. However your COMPANY cannot spend its money however it likes.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

Definitely not. Whether you are a black lesbian Wiccan woman running a patchouli business, or a white Protestant old guy running Exxon, you can spend your OWN money however you like. However your COMPANY cannot spend its money however it likes.

I'm pretty sure that was what one of the Justices was talking about when he made his decision on "Closely Held Companies".

A lot of times, especially in "mom and pop" or non-publicly traded companies, there is no difference in "Company money" and "Personal Money".

When you have to reach into your personal pocket to pay the cost to keep your company going, at that point, are you no longer a person?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Southern_Man 0]

jgoose71

***
Definitely not. Whether you are a black lesbian Wiccan woman running a patchouli business, or a white Protestant old guy running Exxon, you can spend your OWN money however you like. However your COMPANY cannot spend its money however it likes.

I'm pretty sure that was what one of the Justices was talking about when he made his decision on "Closely Held Companies".

A lot of times, especially in "mom and pop" or non-publicly traded companies, there is no difference in "Company money" and "Personal Money".

When you have to reach into your personal pocket to pay the cost to keep your company going, at that point, are you no longer a person?

Once you have incorporated, and sought the protections that the legal systems allow for the fictitious "person" then there is definitely a difference.

I believe the supreme court is on the wrong track and stretching to hold that corporations have rights the same way individual citizens do--first in Citizens United and now in this case. I was happy about the effects of one of those cases but not the other one but the legal reasoning was pretty bad in both of them. I do not see how the Supremes can continue down this path.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 3]

jgoose71

A lot of times, especially in "mom and pop" or non-publicly traded companies, there is no difference in "Company money" and "Personal Money".

Isn't that . . . illegal?

Isn't the entire reason a corporation exists is to separate the two? To protect one from the other?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jgoose71 0]

Southern_Man

******
Definitely not. Whether you are a black lesbian Wiccan woman running a patchouli business, or a white Protestant old guy running Exxon, you can spend your OWN money however you like. However your COMPANY cannot spend its money however it likes.

I'm pretty sure that was what one of the Justices was talking about when he made his decision on "Closely Held Companies".

A lot of times, especially in "mom and pop" or non-publicly traded companies, there is no difference in "Company money" and "Personal Money".

When you have to reach into your personal pocket to pay the cost to keep your company going, at that point, are you no longer a person?

Once you have incorporated, and sought the protections that the legal systems allow for the fictitious "person" then there is definitely a difference.

I believe the supreme court is on the wrong track and stretching to hold that corporations have rights the same way individual citizens do--first in Citizens United and now in this case. I was happy about the effects of one of those cases but not the other one but the legal reasoning was pretty bad in both of them. I do not see how the Supremes can continue down this path.

I'll put you down for "Once a person starts a company, he loses his basic human rights"

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

quade

***A lot of times, especially in "mom and pop" or non-publicly traded companies, there is no difference in "Company money" and "Personal Money".

Isn't that . . . illegal?

Isn't the entire reason a corporation exists is to separate the two? To protect one from the other?

No, it's not illegal.

When a person starts a company, it's personal money or money lent to a person.

When a mom and pop store goes through a rough spell and operates in the red, they will usually give up money that would have been their pay to keep it going.

It doesn't get divided into "corporate money" and "personal money" until they do their taxes.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[champu 1]

jgoose71

***I agree with this, but would also add, while the money is in your hands, you can't stamp "...except for any debts incurred due to things I find offensive to my religion" below where it reads, "legal tender for all debts public or private" prior to giving it to me.

By putting the legal tender phrase on money "the government is mandating you pay for all your employees most religiously offensive acts, when what the money is good for should be between you and your employees."

Your logic is dizzying me, I'm not quite sure what you are saying.

It almost sounds like "If you are an employer, you have to pay for what your employee wants."

And you are justifying it by saying the current rules are "The employee still has to spend the his paycheck in a fashion that the employer dictates."

Which is kind of the opposite of what I said, and the court ruled.

Sorry, I was trying to draw a parallel but it appears it was confusing / mistakable as a direct comment.

There are a few things we're talking about here: dollars, health insurance coverage, and medical care / prescription drugs. Dollars and health insurance coverage are two very popular ways to compensate employees for their work. Dollars can buy anything, including medical care and prescription drugs. Health insurance coverage can buy medical care and prescription drugs. Part of the ACA set out to standardize what "health insurance coverage" meant by specifying what, at a minimum, it could buy. It's similar to what the National Banking and Legal Tender Acts did for "dollars" 150 years ago.

My point is that "health insurance coverage" is not "medical care" and is actually much more similar to "dollars." As I wrote a while ago, I think it's markedly absurd to insist that some of your offered compensation not be used for a particular expense, and then allow that other compensation may be used for that expense.

My addition in my last post was written from the frame of mind that "health insurance coverage" and "dollars" are essentially interchangeable as forms of compensation. (And in fact, if you are a W2 employee you can take a look at Box DD and see just how true that is.)

[Southern_Man 0]

jgoose71

*********
Definitely not. Whether you are a black lesbian Wiccan woman running a patchouli business, or a white Protestant old guy running Exxon, you can spend your OWN money however you like. However your COMPANY cannot spend its money however it likes.

I'm pretty sure that was what one of the Justices was talking about when he made his decision on "Closely Held Companies".

A lot of times, especially in "mom and pop" or non-publicly traded companies, there is no difference in "Company money" and "Personal Money".

When you have to reach into your personal pocket to pay the cost to keep your company going, at that point, are you no longer a person?

Once you have incorporated, and sought the protections that the legal systems allow for the fictitious "person" then there is definitely a difference.

I believe the supreme court is on the wrong track and stretching to hold that corporations have rights the same way individual citizens do--first in Citizens United and now in this case. I was happy about the effects of one of those cases but not the other one but the legal reasoning was pretty bad in both of them. I do not see how the Supremes can continue down this path.

I'll put you down for "Once a person starts a company, he loses his basic human rights"

Great. So glad Speaker's corner is such a great place for in-depth discussion of complex issues.

You can put me down for whatever you want. A corporation is very different from an individual person. By starting a business there are quite a number of rules and regulations you have to obey that individuals do not. When you start a corporation you also get different tax rules, protections during bankrupty, and other differences in status.

So you want those benefits without any corresponding responsibilities it seems?

Business are not individuals. While businesses may and do have certain rights they are certainly not synonymous with the rights that individuals have.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,400]

>A lot of times, especially in "mom and pop" or non-publicly traded companies,
>there is no difference in "Company money" and "Personal Money".

Agreed. If a company has no employees (i.e. are really "mom and pop") then this should not apply.

>When you have to reach into your personal pocket to pay the cost to keep
>your company going, at that point, are you no longer a person?

?? Many people do that. They put a lot of their personal money into their own (or other people's) companies. They are still people.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

I'll put you down for "Once a person starts a company, he loses his basic human rights"

More like when you employ someone you have to accept some responsibilities towards them.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jgoose71 0]

Southern_Man

You can put me down for whatever you want. A corporation is very different from an individual person. By starting a business there are quite a number of rules and regulations you have to obey that individuals do not. When you start a corporation you also get different tax rules, protections during bankrupty, and other differences in status.

So you want those benefits without any corresponding responsibilities it seems?

Business are not individuals. While businesses may and do have certain rights they are certainly not synonymous with the rights that individuals have.

And agreed that you have responsibilities when you start a business. But when do those responsibilities stop? If my employee takes a shit, am I responsible to wipe his ass under penalty of law?

Corporations are not people but they are ran by people. A rule that is passed by the government has to have people to follow it. Kind of similar to a gun that needs a person to pull the trigger.

When you mandate that a business has to so something, there is a actual person in there that has to do it. And you seem to be all for making him do something that is against his religious beliefs.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>A lot of times, especially in "mom and pop" or non-publicly traded companies,
>there is no difference in "Company money" and "Personal Money".

Agreed. If a company has no employees (i.e. are really "mom and pop") then this should not apply.

>When you have to reach into your personal pocket to pay the cost to keep
>your company going, at that point, are you no longer a person?

?? Many people do that. They put a lot of their personal money into their own (or other people's) companies. They are still people.

It sounds like you are starting to see my point of view.

Do you think that the person will feel better about paying for that abortion just because he gets to write it off come tax time?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,400]

>Do you think that the person will feel better about paying for that abortion just
>because he gets to write it off come tax time?

Probably not!