| Author |
|
Steven Legge
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 6:25am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Ironically, all Christian businesses that actually are stupid enough to go along with this will all be sausage factories.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Paul Simpson Simpson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 April 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 939
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 9:20am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
This ruling would all be moot if congress had not passed the Religious Freedom Restoration act and Clinton had not signed it. This is a bi partisan screw up.In the Senate the vote was 52-2 Dems for...45-1 Reps. It is clear from the written opinion that this law was the reason for the ruling. Besides Riley vs California is far more important to our freedoms anyway. +++++++++++++++ Ironically, all Christian businesses that actually are stupid enough to go along with this will all be sausage factories. *********************** Hobby Lobby will not lose too many employees and the ones they do lose will be replaced in a heartbeat. Many of those jobs will be filled by women. In this economy leaving a good job will just not happen in large numbers. Many women will pick a pay check over getting contraception. +++++++++++++++ The men just walk away, yet the women have to take total responsibility for the outcomes of said trysts, according to Mr. Kane's archaic thinking. ********************** This is one unintended consequence of the way men are treated by the justice system in child custody cases. The way these cases are resolved institutionalizes men as the lesser parents. This is not in all custody cases,but it happens in far too many cases. The fact that many men are dogs who couldn't give a damn how many kids they father and women who put up with it doesn't help matters. There is plenty of blame to go around in these matters.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2174
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 9:53am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Craig>>Christian Scientists believe that illness is an illusion and prayer can cure all.<<
To add to this, what if a business owner were a Scientologist (recognized religion in the US) and therefore didn't believe in drugs of any kind? Could he deny coverage to an employee due to his deeply held religious belief? If not, why not?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Abbey
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2007
Posts: 344
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 10:06am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Viagra is covered. Birth control pills (which are not just used for birth
control) are not.
++++++++++++
This is just simply untrue. Hobby Lobby does not object to providing sixteen out of twenty forms of birth control. They objected on religious grounds to providing four types that that they believe terminates pregnancy such as the morning after pill. I believe the fact that the government had already created an exemption for religious organizations that did not want to provide these contraceptives was seen as a precedent.
I think there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the issue without the need to resort to falsehoods.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3004
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 10:25am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
The Supreme Court has clarified the ruling; it applies to all forms of birth control, not just the four Hobby Lobby sued over.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-says-hobby-lobby-ru ling-applies-broadly
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35722
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 10:36am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Hypocrites.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3488
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 10:37am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
People really need to read the full decision before commenting. The ruling only applies to closely held companies, it only applies to birth control, not to blood transfusions, vaccines, or any other treatment, and it is not based on freedom of religion, its based on standing Federal law that requires the government to make mandates that some will find religiously objectionable in the least invasive way possible.
Later this afternoon, the President could issue an executive order requiring health insurance companies to cover all forms of birth control without further remuneration (which is what they do in the case of religious non-profits under the Affordable Care Act), or issue one saying that the Department of Health and Human Services will cover the cost of birth control for any woman whose insurance coverage doesn't, and this whole issue will be over. Its that simple. In the decision, the Court said both of those options would be Constitutional and fit the parameters of Federal law.
Edited by Steve De Young on 01 July 2014 at 10:38am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14812
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 10:41am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| The ruling only applies to closely held companies |
|
|
Which is 90% of all businesses, covering more than half of the workforce.
QUOTE:
| it only applies to birth control, not to blood transfusions, vaccines, or any other treatment |
|
|
I think you are missing the point.
QUOTE:
| and it is not based on freedom of religion, its based on standing Federal law that requires the government to make mandates that some will find religiously objectionable in the least invasive way possible. |
|
|
Are you referring to the standing Federal law entitled "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3488
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 10:50am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Which is 90% of all businesses, covering more than half of the workforce.
------------------------
Where are you getting that statistic? You're really arguing that publically traded companies only employ 10% of Americans?
I think you are missing the point.
------------------------
No, I'm not. Read the decision. The Justices explicitly said that this decision does not apply to blood transfusions, vaccinations, or any form of treatment other than birth control. So all of the posts on here about 'What if scientologists blah blah...' are ill-informed. People need to read the actual decision.
Are you referring to the standing Federal law entitled "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"?
------------------------
Precisely. If you read the decision, the Justices were clear that First Ammendment protections did not apply to this case. The RFRA requires government mandates that might religiously or morally offend to be issued in the least invasive way possible. So if the government's goal is to provide access to all forms of contraception for all women, there are several ways they can do it. The government can pay to provide it. The government can require insurance companies to provide it at no charge (as they already do for employees of religious non-profits). Or the government can try to require a third party, the woman's employer, to pay for it. Because the first two options are far less invasive than the third, the third option is incompatible with the Federal law.
Lets turn the situation around. Lets say one of the atheists on this board owned a family owned business. You have an employee who's an immigrant from Africa who intends to mutilate his daughter's genitals when she turns 13 as part of his religious practice. He argues that under the Affordable Care Act, you as his employer have to pay for the clitorectomy and the attendant medical care. These decisions work both ways, you know?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3004
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 11:03am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
If you really think a woman voluntarily taking birth control is the moral equivalent of forced female genital mutilation, you're out of your fucking mind.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3004
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 11:07am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
For consistency's sake, I assume you're similarly opposed to the genital mutilation of infant males, which is far, far more prevalent in this country.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2174
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 11:09am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Steve De Young>>Lets turn the situation around. Lets say one of the atheists on this board owned a family owned business. You have an employee who's an immigrant from Africa who intends to mutilate his daughter's genitals when she turns 13 as part of his religious practice. He argues that under the Affordable Care Act, you as his employer have to pay for the clitorectomy and the attendant medical care. These decisions work both ways, you know?<<
Female genital mutiliation is illegal in the US regardless of your religious views.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
