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.
And that applies to the 50 other companies owned by Catholics that don't want to pay for any form of birth control.
Separation of Church and State. SCOTUS made the right decision.
You can still get your birth control but it's going to be opening your own wallet for it as opposed to forcing someone else with different religious beliefs to pay for it.
Opps... Gotta hate it when you go on a long rant that was already answered by the ruling you refuse to read because you're either to scared or wouldn't understand all those big words.
So where does it say that investing in the product you claim to be against is okay? That somehow you are sincere, while investing in said product?
I understand what you are saying but you don't seem to understand how investing in a 401(k) plan works or even the intricacies of how a managed fund operates or is created. You seem to be under the false belief that simply having someone set up a retirement plan for your employees means that you went through every single fund and every single company and decided if that was something you wanted. There's a reason why companies use a third party to operate their retirement plans.
No that is not how conservatives decided this case. On separation of church and state lol.
They decided using the Religiouse freedom and restoration act which was an update or re affirming if another law/act.
Quote:
The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on this matter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.
Write your congresscritter and have them take up the issue if it concerns you so much. The court is simply there to enforce laws enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. In this case RFRA was passed unanimously by congress with only 3 dissenting votes in the Senate and signed into law by BJ Bill.
Write your congresscritter and have them take up the issue if it concerns you so much. The court is simply there to enforce laws enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. In this case RFRA was passed unanimously by congress with only 3 dissenting votes in the Senate and signed into law by BJ Bill.
And today Dems that voted for that bill are saying..."But we didn't mean for it to be used that way..."
Crying in their soup.
Sure, but if it wasn't them it would have been someone else. The problem is it's a horribly written law. I say that perhaps coming from the left of you.
The only way to do this is single payer. We could easily pay for it with what we are absolutely throwing away around the world and have billions left over even after the inevitable fraud and waste the program would create.
Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee absolutely violated Norma McCorvey's right to privacy but then argued her right to privacy in court. Would the case have been brought sooner or later anyway? Yes it would have.
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'm done repeating myself.
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.
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.
