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.
As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Post, at 1 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose “disadvantages . . . on others” or that require “the general public [to] pick up the tab.”
conservatives on c-d lying an insisting this case had nothing to with birth control: meanwhile in the reality based world
The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
Yeah so just like I have repeated posted this case was 100% anti-birth control.
conservatives in 2014 are anti-birth control. Conservatives in 2014 are for corporations who as now deemed religious persons to violate federal law and deny coverage for any birth control period in those employee's health insurance so as long as the belief can be divined to be sincerely held by conservative supreme court justices.
But this right for corporations now deemed religious persons with a sincerely held anti-birth control religious belief only extends to birth control and not other medical treatments that others disfavor for religious reasons.
conservatives on c-d lying an insisting this case had nothing to with birth control: meanwhile in the reality based world
The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
Yeah so just like I have repeated posted this case was 100% anti-birth control.
conservatives in 2014 are anti-birth control. Conservatives in 2014 are for corporations who as now deemed religious persons to violate federal law and deny coverage for any birth control period in those employee's health insurance so as long as the belief can be divined to be sincerely held by conservative supreme court justices.
But this right for corporations now deemed religious persons with a sincerely held anti-birth control religious belief only extends to birth control and not other medical treatments that others disfavor for religious reasons.
It was the Supreme Court that made the decision.
Now go back to how you got your birth control in 2011 before HHS stuck their nose into everyone's business.
This Supreme Court decision shows that it's going to be a while yet before the US turns communist.
Only slightly. I would still think it was crazy, but at least the company would be sincere. Assuming they weren't just like HL.
BigJohn, where does it explain that it's okay to invest in the product you claim to be against? I would be interested to read that.
If what they say about their investments are true I understand thinking bad of them. I can't say I blame you but they weren't the only entity signed on to this lawsuit.
If what they say about their investments are true I understand thinking bad of them. I can't say I blame you but they weren't the only entity signed on to this lawsuit.
I would think this opens the door to more moral rules in the workplace. Why should a company have to pay for the childbirth and care of a child of an immoral employee? Like one who get's pregnant without being married?
I covered that. It is not something the courts take into consideration. They also didn't mention their super bowl favorites.
It should be taken into consideration when the whole argument revolves around their "sincerely held" beliefs. Otherwise I question the way this country works.
I would think this opens the door to more moral rules in the workplace. Why should a company have to pay for the childbirth and care of a child of an immoral employee? Like one who get's pregnant without being married?
You got that in Catholic schools already. Don't you recall the number of fired single pregnant teachers in the news ?
It was in their contract though and the courts upheld it.
You are the one that accepts a job offer. No one is forced to work for any employer against their will.
And when you accept the job offer you accept the terms under which you are employed.
If you don't like the terms then you don't accept the job.
The "me me me" generation is finally facing the real world where it's NOT all about you.
And if you don't like that then go work for the government. They won't fire you and will give you everything you desire.
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.