Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The worst kind of hypocrite is a religious hypocrite.
How can you question a corporation's deeply-held religious convictions in making money in any way possible, including investing in companies which let people murder unborn children? Why do you hate [corporate] religious freedom?
How can you question a corporation's deeply-held religious convictions in making money in any way possible, including investing in companies which let people murder unborn children? Why do you hate [corporate] religious freedom?
This is what I'm reasonably certain it's all about - not Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs. Some bean counter probably said that the company could save tons of money by refusing to cover contraception. Then some clever lawyer pulled religion out of his bag of tricks ... and presto!
Now the Hobby Lobby execs can laugh all the way to the bank.
This is what I'm reasonably certain it's all about - not Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs. Some bean counter probably said that the company could save tons of money by refusing to cover contraception. Then some clever lawyer pulled religion out of his bag of tricks ... and presto!
Now the Hobby Lobby execs can laugh all the way to the bank.
Given that they didn't seem to care about the fact that they covered these evil religious-freedom robbing drugs until Moderator cut: offensive political remark , there are other less charitable readings of their actions as well.
Last edited by mensaguy; 07-09-2014 at 01:56 PM..
Reason: political remark removed
not sure how some employees having various opinions on these questions means the company in question gets to ignore the law. Can you connect the two for me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
sure. My answers are yes, yes, no, no.
In other words, aborting a healthy 8-month old fetus is murder, but aborting a 3-month old fetus or killing a fertilized egg is ok.
However, some very reasonable people would answer yes to all four questions. They sincerely believe any kind of an abortion, even killing a fertilized egg, is murder, and that is probably why they are opposed to a contraceptive that kills a fertilized egg.
Forcing these people to offer those types of contraceptives to their employees seems wrong to me, and that is why i agree with the supreme court decision.
I don't see any connection between my question and what you wrote. Sure, some people in a given company feel certain ways about certain subjects. Why do those feelings give the corporation an excuse to break the law? Are you saying that a few employees having strong feelings about, say, minimum wage laws means that the company they work for should be able to pay less? Seems like quite a stretch - if anyone can ignore a law just because they feel like it, that kind of makes laws useless. I'd be curious to see the logic linking "people have feelings about things" and "companies don't have to follow the law" which doesn't lead to anarchy.
I'd be curious to see the logic linking "people have feelings about things" and "companies don't have to follow the law" which doesn't lead to anarchy.
As I understand it, the ACA stated that employers had to offer health insurance policies to their employees, and these policies had to cover things like IUDs.
Since IUDs prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the uterus, some people see this as killing a fertilized egg, and they think killing a fertilized egg is wrong.
As a result, they thought IUDs are evil and they did not want their insurance policies to cover IUDs.
The Supreme Court said the ACA should not force employers to do something they reasonably thought was evil as long as there are other alternatives. A good decision, in my opinion.
I admit I don't currently have a strong view on this.
I come from a country which has free healthcare and automatically provides free contraception to everyone (the responsible thing to do obviously), so I admit to finding it a little odd that companies should have to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees...(shouldn't the government provide it directly?)
So I'd be interested to hear others views on this.
This would seem to make sense:
I did find this interesting:
???
Is this saying the government pays for coverage of contraception for those who work for churches and church charities?
I don't know what to make of this really.
I'll be interested to hear you views.
Thanks.
Typical. The governments High Court rules on a religious case...in contravention of the "State" being separate from the "church". What happened to the "make no law" regulation in the main set of rules (The Constitution)? I guess nobody hipped them to that.
They have no business being involved in any case involving religion...according to "the rules".
But the government has always promoted religion...ever since those Founding Fathers (more like Founding Con-men) set the example of how to be really great at doing something you just wrote that you shouldn't do. NO group ever promoted religion better than those Dudes. GEICO doesn't promote its insurance as hard as they promoted religion. They were so good at it...the influence endures over 200 years later.
This all stems from Pres. Clinton and his "passing laws" on the exercise of religion...the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (again...something the government isn't supposed to do) conflicting with Obama mandating that businesses that employ more than a small group of people have to provide them health insurance coverage along with their pay.
Who are these officials to tell businesses that they have to buy the people working there an insurance policy? Terrible. Let them buy their own insurance. They are lucky to have a job...never mind insurance on top of their pay.
Freedom is getting trampled...not "restored".
Typical. The governments High Court rules on a religious case...in contravention of the "State" being separate from the "church". What happened to the "make no law" regulation in the main set of rules (The Constitution)? I guess nobody hipped them to that.
They have no business being involved in any case involving religion...according to "the rules".
Do you really believe that? I mean, I think maximizing personal freedom of conscience should be the name of the game, but would you honestly argue, foe example that murdering homosexuals or adulterers should not be a legal matter because, for some religions, it may be a matter of doctrine?
My tendency is to argue that enforcing a specific, secular set of laws and principles equally and fairly is not an establishment of religion, nor is it discrimination against one. I do think that the matter is over complicated, becasue of other problems with governmental behavior. For example the "War on Drugs" has caused the government to carve out religious exemptions for peyote. There would never have been this issue of contraception, if not for the byzantine intersection of Insurance, medicine, and government. It is the government sticking its finger in things that has gotten us in these sticky positions in the first place. If not for the mess of self interested regulations, this would be a lot easier to sort out.
Nevertheless, I think granting personhood to corporations and allowing businesses to claim "religious principles" are not the right way to solve these issues.
Yeah, why bother having laws at all? Might as well do whatever feels good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.