court rules for Hobby Lobby (Hispanic, poverty, Congress, Obama)
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.
But someone has to, and they shouldn't have the owners beliefs shoved down their throats when it comes to their health. Wanna have bible verses everywhere? Closed on Sunday? Who cares, but the beliefs of the owner shouldn't trump the health of their employees. Some women need to have the IUD and would have to come out of pocket for it if they work there, simply because the owner wants to save some money himself, and hide behind religious beliefs. Read the link I posted, it isn't about religious beliefs.
Sure it is. The only birth control that is banned are the four in question, the abortifacients.
In regards to "saving some money" that has nothing to do with it. What does have something to do with it is if it places a "substantial" burden on an employer. It is after all their company.
Quote:
Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.
Lol....that you are incapable of understanding the constitution, our laws and the courts with how they work just seems something no one will be able to overcome.
Yes, I support constitutional protections for hypocrites, government employees, the rich, the poor and anyone else you can come up with.
Does the constitution say fraud is okay? Do our laws? You want to protect people who commit fraud, that's fine, I'll stay here in reality while you stay in your own little world. Please tell me, why should they be able to claim a religious exemption against BC, while simultaneously investing in BC? Can you explain why that's okay? Should I be able to claim a religious exemption because mine says I shouldn't pay taxes? Should a scientologist be able to take all mental health out of their insurance plans?
They're only subject to his beliefs if they're required to buy insurance from him. Even then, unless they're forced to pay for services they don't receive are they subject to HL's owners beliefs. Employees affected by the ruling can choose to buy a different policy or go to PP or other health clinic.
Exactly. If for example, a woman needs an IUD because she can't use other BC pills there are other options for obtaining those devices.
As for the IUD itself, IMO, it's silly for Hobby Lobby to reject that particular device since it prevents conception from ever occurring. I can see their objections for the morning after pills but I don't know why anybody with religious beliefs would have a problem with an IUD.
Does the constitution say fraud is okay? Do our laws? You want to protect people who commit fraud, that's fine, I'll stay here in reality while you stay in your own little world. Please tell me, why should they be able to claim a religious exemption against BC, while simultaneously investing in BC? Can you explain why that's okay? Should I be able to claim a religious exemption because mine says I shouldn't pay taxes? Should a scientologist be able to take all mental health out of their insurance plans?
Hypocrisy is not legal fraud. I covered this. The courts can not remove constitutional rights from hypocrits any more than they can anyone else.
The Supreme Court has said, if you have a gripe bring it to them.
Sure it is. The only birth control that is banned are the four in question, the abortifacients.
In regards to "saving some money" that has nothing to do with it. What does have something to do with it is if it places a "substantial" burden on an employer. It is after all their company.
Wow, I didn't know my wife, who can't have any more kids, is suddenly having a bunch of abortions because of her IUD. Learn something new every day
Ok, well MY company doesn't want to hire blacks or Hispanics or gays, and won't provide health coverage for unwed mothers or people under 25. I also want to sexually harass my women employees, but hey, it's okay because it's my company right? Stupid argument.
How then did this court use as a standard "sincerely held beliefs"? If one is a hypocrite, then that casts doubt on one's sincerity, no?
Thank you DC at the Ridge! Finally someone who understands my point. If the beliefs were "sincerely held" they wouldn't have had anything to do with those companies. They're beliefs are b.s., yet these people hold them in high regard for standing up for their beliefs, when they only do so when it helps them. When it makes them money all of a sudden they are ok with it.
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.
