court rules for Hobby Lobby (insurance, companies, abortion, cost)
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.
Well, considering SCOTUS members are appointed and not elected, submitting my opinion to them wouldn't do much. However, I plan on writing to my congressman about it.
I agree. No one has lost the right; however, the ease of accessibility has been diminished on religious grounds, which I don't agree with.
So you propose denying someone else's rights to make it easier for others? That sounds fair.
How about we protect all peoples rights including those who decide to own businesses and if there is something we want that is not easily accessible, we take personal responsibility to either acquire something that is easily accessible or we inconvenience ourselves (rather than others) to obtain this not so easily accessible service/product, that way ALL rights are protected.
Well, considering SCOTUS members are appointed and not elected, submitting my opinion to them wouldn't do much. However, I plan on writing to my congressman about it.
That's the great thing about American. I'm sure you would have to prove that all heart problems are blamed on meat, how about the vegetarian that has heart problems would your Hindi insurance deny them?
They can access it anywhere they choose no one is denying them access
I never said anyone was denying access. I stated that the ease of access has been diminished. I'm curious as to why you support this ruling. For religious reasons? Constitutionality? Juridical personhood?
From my persective, religious views are being imposed in the form of denying coverage. For example, if I was a Hindu owner of a private business, and I wanted to deny coverage for cardiovascular medication because I saw a correlation between eating meat and heart disease, would I be justified in doing so?
Sure. And the employees would be justified in telling you adios.
The reality is now, especially with the ACA and the exchanges, employers have less responsibility than ever before to offer healthcare to their employees. If you don't like what your employer is offering, go log on to the Obamacare/ACA website and find the plan that works best for you.
That's the great thing about American. I'm sure you would have to prove that all heart problems are blamed on meat, how about the vegetarian that has heart problems would your Hindi insurance deny them?
I would provide coverage only if they could provide evidence of their dietary habits. In alignment of the ruling, my religious views take precedent over the desires of my employees since I am a private business owner.
I never said anyone was denying access. I stated that the ease of access has been diminished. I'm curious as to why you support this ruling. For religious reasons? Constitutionality? Juridical personhood?
I support it because of the constitutional reasons . If you so.ey ow a company the government should not make you buy something for someone else that is against their religion
I would provide coverage only if they could provide evidence of their dietary habits. In alignment of the ruling, my religious views take precedent over the desires of my employees since I am a private business owner.
So you would cover vegetarians but not cover someone that eats fish, by bet is that case you would lose, but you can drop you're insurance and put them on an exchange which was what hobby lobby was going to do if they lost
Sure. And the employees would be justified in telling you adios.
The reality is now, especially with the ACA and the exchanges, employers have less responsibility than ever before to offer healthcare to their employees. If you don't like what your employer is offering, go log on to the Obamacare/ACA website and find the plan that works best for you.
Indeed, they would be justified in quitting, but why should I have the right to impose my religious views on my employees from the start?
I agree. However, if my employer-provided insurance proved to be cheaper and/or more comprehensive, I'd still be in a disadvantaged position.
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.